WILKINS v. WILKINS (2021)

Dominique Wilkins appeals the trial court's order granting temporary relief in this dissolution proceeding. We affirm the order generally but reverse the imputation of income to her. The record establishes that Wilkins and her husband decided that she would live with family in Jacksonville and take care of their minor child (as well as Wilkins' minor child from a prior relationship) while finishing up her nursing degree. In requiring Wilkins to pay monthly child support to her husband (who is in active military duty), the trial court found that she had only taken one course since moving in with her family and that it was “appropriate to impute minimum wage to Wife for the purposes of calculating child support.” Although a trial court is generally “required to impute income to a parent who is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, pursuant to section 61.30(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2003),” Freilich v. Freilich, 897 So. 2d 537, 540 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), this Court has held that “[g]reat deference should be accorded the joint decision of the parties that the wife should stay home to care for the children ․ , notwithstanding any personal feelings the trial court or this court may have concerning the ultimate wisdom of that decision.” Zeigler v. Zeigler, 635 So. 2d 50, 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Here, the trial court did not explain why imputing income to Wilkins was appropriate when the couple had agreed that she should stay home to care for the children and attend college; no evidence suggests that Wilkins was required or expected to generate income. As such, because competent substantial evidence fails to support the trial court's imputation of income, that portion of the order granting temporary relief is reversed.

Affirmed in part, Reversed in part.

Per Curiam.

Lewis, Makar, and Long, JJ., concur.