Opinion
No. 2D20-2238
01-19-2022
J.T.K., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE O/B/O K.T., Appellee.
Christin C. Brennan of Meros, Smith, Lazzara, Brennan & Brennan, of St. Petersburg, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas D. Sunshine, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa for Appellee.
Christin C. Brennan of Meros, Smith, Lazzara, Brennan & Brennan, of St. Petersburg, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas D. Sunshine, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa for Appellee.
STARGEL, Judge.
J.T.K. (the Father) challenges a Final Administrative Paternity and Support Order requiring him to pay ongoing and retroactive child support to K.T. (the Mother). Because we find merit in the Father's argument that the administrative law judge failed to account for a reduction in childcare costs in calculating the amount of step-down child support upon the emancipation of the eldest child, we reverse in part.
As to the Father's argument that the administrative law judge erroneously included costs for overnight childcare in calculating the amount of his current support obligation for both children, we affirm without comment.
The Department of Revenue brought this action on behalf of the Mother seeking to establish paternity and child support for her children, J.M.K. and A.D.K. At a hearing before the administrative law judge, the Mother testified that the cost for after-school care is $260 per month for J.M.K. and $281 per month for A.D.K. In addition, the Mother spends a total of $1,300 per month for overnight childcare in order to work a second job three nights per week. The child support guidelines established a total monthly support need of $4,008, which includes $1,841 in childcare costs. The Final Administrative Paternity and Support Order set the Father's current support obligation at $2,124 per month, with a step-down obligation of $1,779 upon the emancipation of A.D.K.
A determination of child support "must be supported by evidence in the record," Dep't of Revenue ex rel. K.A.N. v. A.N.J. , 165 So. 3d 846, 848 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015), and is generally reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion, Dep't of Revenue ex rel. T.L.S. v. S.J.W. , 113 So. 3d 85, 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). The guidelines worksheet used to calculate the step-down obligation in this case includes $1,841 in childcare costs, which the Mother's testimony reflects is the current cost of childcare for both children. However, the step-down obligation only kicks in upon the termination of the Father's obligation to support A.D.K., with the earliest possible date being A.D.K.'s eighteenth birthday, at which point A.D.K. will no longer require childcare. For this reason, it was error to include childcare costs for A.D.K. in calculating the amount of the Father's step-down obligation.
The Father suggests that childcare will also be unnecessary for J.M.K., who will be approximately sixteen-and-a-half when A.D.K. turns eighteen. However, despite his skepticism that childcare will be necessary for a teenager of that age, J.M.K. will still be under the age of majority, and the record before us does not establish what his needs will be at that time. Therefore, we decline to speculate on the issue at this time.
The Department of Revenue argues that even if the Father's obligation to pay child support is reduced due to A.D.K.'s emancipation, he could potentially be required to "pay at the same rate in effect immediately prior to emancipation until all arrearages, retroactive support, delinquencies, and costs are paid in full." § 61.14(10)(b), Fla. Stat. (2019). However, even assuming the father is required to continue paying $2,124 per month after the emancipation of A.D.K., the statute requires that any amounts paid in excess of the then-current obligation "shall be credited against the arrearages, retroactive support, delinquency, and costs owed." Id. In that situation, an excessive step-down obligation would still be problematic because it would reduce the portion of any payments that would be credited towards any amounts due under the statute.
Accordingly, we reverse the Final Administrative Paternity and Support Order in part and remand for the Father's step-down obligation to be recalculated without factoring in childcare costs for A.D.K. The administrative law judge may take additional evidence as necessary to make this determination. Furthermore, although we affirm the Final Administrative Paternity and Support Order insofar as the Father's current support obligation includes costs for overnight childcare, we note that the administrative law judge may consider any new evidence regarding the Mother's present employment situation and need for overnight childcare and adjust the Father's support obligation as appropriate.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded with instructions.
CASANUEVA and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.