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.
Daniel Albert STANDARD, Appellant, v. STATE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM and Tara Lynn Curtis, Appellees.
Appellant challenges on appeal the Department of Revenue’s administrative paternity and support order, entered in proceedings under sections 409.256 and 409.2563, Florida Statutes. Appellant seeks judicial review of the administrative order pursuant to sections 409.256(12) and 409.2563(10)(a).
Because Appellant failed to participate in the administrative proceedings by returning the forms for financial information supplied him by the Department and failed to request an administrative hearing after notice of his right to do so and the consequences for failing to do so, Appellant has not preserved any issue for this Court’s appellate review. By waiving his right to a hearing, Appellant waived his ability to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the Department’s determination of his child support obligations. See § 409.2563(7)(b), Fla. Stat.
Even if Appellant had preserved any issues for appellate review, the grounds he asserts for setting aside the administrative order would have no merit. We are required to affirm final agency action unless Appellant shows a ground for setting such action aside, as provided by section 120.68, Florida Statutes. § 120.68(8), Fla. Stat. Appellant fails to establish any of the statutory grounds. His assertion of an agreement with the child’s mother that no retroactive child support is owed is legally irrelevant because parents may not contract away or waive the rights of their child for support. Lancaster v. Lancaster, 228 So.3d 1197, 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). Accordingly, the administrative paternity and support order is
Affirmed.
Per Curiam.
Bilbrey, Winokur, and Jay, 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: No. 1D17-2231
Decided: August 03, 2018
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, First 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)