A Florida court has reversed a decision regarding child support that affected Marlon Reed, a former husband, and Tria E. Parsons, his ex-wife. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to support a modification of child support payments that included a timesharing adjustment. This ruling is significant as it clarifies how child support calculations should be handled when parents have multiple children and different living arrangements.
The case, Marlon Reed v. Florida Department of Revenue and Tria E. Parsons, was filed under docket number 1D19-3833. It began when Parsons sought an upward modification of child support from Reed, who had remarried and had a child with his new spouse. The decision to modify child support was based on a previous agreement made during their divorce in 2012, which involved their three children.
After the oldest child became emancipated, the Florida Department of Revenue (DOR) filed a supplemental petition on behalf of Parsons to increase the child support payments for the two remaining children. During the proceedings, it was noted that Reed, his new spouse, and their child lived together as a family. However, there was no evidence of a formal timesharing arrangement for their child.
The child support hearing officer initially indicated that she would consider a Speed calculation, which allows a parent to receive credit for supporting other biological children. However, when the hearing officer issued her recommended order, she granted Reed a Speed credit but also applied a 50/50 timesharing adjustment. This adjustment was based on the assumption that Reed and his current wife shared parenting responsibilities for their child.
Reed contested this decision, arguing that there was no evidence of a timesharing schedule between him and his current spouse for their child. He claimed that the hearing officer's adjustment was not supported by any testimony or documentation. Parsons, on the other hand, argued that the court had the discretion to make such adjustments based on the circumstances.
The trial court ultimately approved the hearing officer's recommendation, leading Reed to file a motion to vacate the order. He contended that the trial court had made an error by implementing a timesharing schedule that was not substantiated by evidence. The trial court denied his motions, prompting Reed to appeal the decision.
The District Court of Appeal of Florida reviewed the case and found that the trial court had abused its discretion. The court noted that there was no competent, substantial evidence to support the timesharing adjustment applied to Reed's Speed credit. The court stated, "Even assuming section 61.30(11)(a)10. could apply at all to this situation, there is no record evidence of any timesharing agreement between them for their after-born child."
The ruling emphasized that a parent supporting a subsequent child can raise that obligation as a basis for deviation from the child support guidelines. However, the court clarified that adjustments based on timesharing must be supported by evidence, which was not present in this case. The court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for recalculation of Reed's child support obligation without the timesharing adjustment.
This ruling has implications for future child support cases in Florida. It reinforces the importance of having clear evidence when making adjustments to child support obligations, especially in situations involving multiple children and blended families. The decision may affect how courts interpret and apply child support guidelines, particularly regarding timesharing arrangements.
Moving forward, Reed's case may not be the last word on this issue. There could be potential for further legal action, as the court's ruling is not final until any timely and authorized motions are resolved. Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Reed plans to pursue additional legal avenues or if there are related cases pending.