Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
H.R.N., Appellant, v. S.D.L. and DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellees.
H.R.N., the father, appeals an order modifying the amount of child support he is required to pay for his two children with S.D.L., the mother. H.R.N. and S.D.L.'s first child, B.R.N., was born in 2011, and an order was entered that same year establishing paternity and setting his monthly child support payments. Their second child, A.E.N., was born in 2014, and an order establishing paternity for A.E.N. was entered. This order also modified H.R.N.'s monthly child support obligation to include support for both children. We find no merit in H.R.N.'s argument that the trial court erred in calculating his monthly child support obligation.
However, the Department of Revenue correctly concedes that the trial court erred in determining the amount of retroactive child support due. The trial court began calculating retroactive child support beginning on January 13, 2014, the younger child's date of birth. In doing so, it used a monthly support amount of $776, which includes $170 per week in child care expenses. At the hearing, which occurred on October 28, 2015, S.D.L. testified that she had been paying $170 a week in child care expenses for three months. Therefore, the trial court should have included the $170 weekly child care expense starting at the end of July 2015. Accordingly, it was error to require H.R.N. to pay $170 per week for child care expenses from January 13, 2014, to July 2015. We therefore reverse and remand this case for the trial court to recalculate the amount of retroactive child support due.
Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.
CASANUEVA, Judge.
WALLACE and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Case No. 2D15-5659
Decided: May 26, 2017
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)