GONZALEZ v. TAR (2024)

Affirmed. See Pierre v. Bueven, 276 So. 3d 917, 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (explaining that final judgment determining parental responsibility and time-sharing is reviewed for abuse of discretion); Lopez v. Lopez, 994 So. 2d 374, 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“In determining a party's child support obligation, the trial court is granted broad discretionary authority, and its findings will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.”); see also Macarty v. Macarty, 29 So. 3d 434, 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.” (quoting Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979))); Pitcher v. Schneider, 236 So. 3d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (holding that appellant's argument that trial court erred in determining child-sharing schedule in final judgment establishing paternity lacked merit because “[w]ithout a transcript, ‘we cannot resolve the underlying factual issues in order to determine whether the trial court's judgment ․ is without evidentiary support.’ ” (quoting McQuade v. Holroyd, 208 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017))).

PER CURIAM.