IMMEDIATE INCOME DEDUCTION ORDERS

Florida law with regard to child support has changed effective October 1, 2009. The statute as amended now allows parties to request that child support not automatically be paid by an
income deduction order (i.e. an order making employers withhold payment of child support and send it to the State Disbursement Unit to be then sent on to the other parent) as long as the Court feels that direct payment is in the child's best interests. However, the amended statute also provides that if there is not an immediate income deduction order and there is a failure to pay on time in the future, any party may subsequently file an affidavit with the State Disbursement Unit (SDU) alleging a default. Fifteen (15) days thereafter the SDU shall notify all parties that future payments shall be paid through the SDU. No other court action is required.

Bad Faith & Attorney's Fees

An appellate rule change pending now before the Florida Supreme Court could make it easier for a party to seek attorney's fees and costs when the other side acts frivolously or in bad faith. The change was recommended by a vote of 39-0 by the Appellate Court Rules Committee. Under the current rules there is a deadline for lawyers to seek fees and costs from the other side pursuant to Florida Statute, section 57.105. If the bad conduct on the other side occurred after that time deadline, then technically the lawyer could not see relief through fees and costs. The change proposed modifies the rules to allow the lawyer to move for fees and costs because of bad conduct at any point in the case. It is clearly a logical and necessary rule change to try to curtail bad behavior.

The Presumptive 50/50 Time-Sharing Myth

The revised parenting statute that became law effective October 1, 2008, (Senate Bill 2532) has been the source of at least one myth, namely that this law establishes a 50/50 presumption for time sharing.

There is a long history of attempts within the Florida Bar's Family Law Section at revising and improving the custody statute. In recent years a concerted effort was made by some to adopt a "mandatory or presumptive 50/50 custody" approach. This concept was thoroughly examined and the expert opinions of mental health professionals familiar with children needs were carefully considered. This idea was strongly rejected by the study committee based on the overwhelming opinion of these experts who felt that such presumptions are not in the best interest of children, each family being considered unique, with its own history and dynamics. The conclusion was that a one-size-fits-all approach was completely out of place in matters relating to children where a determination of the children's best interests, based on the circumstances of each family, is the controlling standard.

The new October statute did not alter the basic shared parenting principles of our law. The supporters of the 50/50 interpretation point to the specific prohibition against any presumption for the father or the mother (Section 61.13 (2) (c)), the absence of any other clear language, and the deletion of such terms as "custodial" and non-custodial" parents to make their argument. However, viewing the terminology deletions in isolation, and focusing on the lack of other language in this one section, is simply to look at less than half the picture. First, there is absolutely no language creating a 50/50 presumption, and simple logic would dictate that such a "climate changing" event would have been noted during the drafting. Second, parenting determinations are based on best interests, and the factors make it clear that best interest is to be determined by considering the detailed history of every family and its unique facts. See 61.13(3). Moreover, many of the factors contain specific language as to the parents' "demonstrated capacity" or "demonstrated disposition for..." performing particular parenting tasks. See 61.13(3) (a) (c) (j) (k) (o) and (r). Rather than starting with a full range of options to be used depending on the circumstances of each family, the 50/50 time sharing idea arbitrarily sets an artificial starting point. There is a proposed legislative fix is pending, making it clear that there are no presumptions as to time sharing and emphasizing that the individual circumstances of each family are to be considered in determining best interest.

Regardless of what percentage of time sharing may result, any parenting plan or time sharing schedule that is supported by a thorough application of the factors merits serious consideration; focusing on a desired end product, with only a passing regard for the factors, is to protect the perceived best interests of one parent at any cost, the very approach that the statute disfavors. Lawyers best help by putting the client in the best factual light, highlighting the involvement and caring for the child that has taken place, and can continue to be expected, or work towards rehabilitation if needed. This is going to take the kind of early review and preparation that good attorneys are known for, and a lack thereof will have serious consequences.

Child Support Forgiveness in Adoption Cases

Upon entry of a Final Judgment of Adoption of Minor Child, it is clear that the birth parents' ongoing child support obligation ends. But in Step-Parent Adoption cases, past due child support (arrearages) may also be forgiven even though the case law on child support states that the right to child support belongs to the child. What cannot be forgiven by the prospective parents are payments owed to third parties, like the Clerk of Court or the Department of Revenue. A motion related to forgiveness would be filed after the adoption is finalized and only if the adopting parents freely and voluntarily wish to do so. See Florida Statutes, Section 63.212(e).