In modification proceedings, the issues are different than in the original case, because the parties' circumstances are set in a different time and situation. It is not proper in this case to reverse this trial judge because he disagreed with the original trial judge on the propriety of awarding permanent alimony in the first instance. That, I submit, is a misconstruction of the appealed judgment in this case, and an unfortunate misapplication of the law in this area. O'Neal v. O'Neal, 410 So.2d 1369, 1372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Greene v. Greene, 347 So.2d 1090, 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
We, therefore, hold that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Sarah Evans permanent periodic alimony and direct the trial court, upon remand, to award her rehabilitative alimony in an amount and for a time period that will allow Sarah Evans to pursue her desire to obtain a college education without unduly burdening her parenting obligations to her children. If at the end of the rehabilitation period, Sarah Evans can demonstrate that she has made a diligent effort toward rehabilitation which has failed through no fault of her own, she can move for an extension of the rehabilitative alimony or for an award of permanent alimony. See Greene v. Greene, 347 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Finally, Dennis Evans contends, which contention is undisputed by Sarah Evans, that the trial court erred when it failed to order an automatic termination of child support.
Mrs. Barker has failed to show the trial court abused its discretion and as the period of rehabilitative alimony draws to a close, she may, upon a showing of diligent effort toward rehabilitation which through no fault of her own has been unsuccessful, move the trial court for an extension of the rehabilitative alimony or for an award of permanent alimony. Greene v. Greene, 347 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Cann v. Cann, 334 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980). We affirm also the amount of alimony and child support awarded because it passes the reasonableness test set forth in Canakaris.