A Florida court has reversed a ruling regarding child support in the case of Tara F. Allison v. Stuart F. Allison, docket number 2D21-3677. The court found that the lower court had wrongly placed the burden of proof on Tara F. Allison, the former wife, regarding her income status. This decision affects how child support is calculated in cases involving voluntary underemployment.
The case originated from a divorce between Tara F. Allison and Stuart F. Allison, finalized in 2014. The couple had two minor children, and the divorce settlement included a parenting plan that allowed Tara to have majority timesharing and to homeschool the children. In 2019, Stuart petitioned for a modification of timesharing and child support, arguing that Tara was voluntarily underemployed and suggesting that equal timesharing would allow her to work more hours.
During the hearings, Tara testified that she worked as a flight attendant but only managed to work about 15 to 25 hours per month due to her responsibilities at home and certain restrictions on her work schedule. She explained that her commute from New Jersey limited her ability to take on more hours. Stuart countered with a request to impute income to Tara based on his claim that she was not working enough hours.
The magistrate recommended that Tara's income be imputed at $4,631 per month, suggesting that she had voluntarily reduced her work hours. This recommendation was based on the magistrate's belief that Tara had not made sufficient efforts to find alternative employment or transfer to a Florida base, where she could potentially work more hours. Tara contested this recommendation, arguing that the magistrate had not considered her testimony about the limitations she faced.
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, led by Judge Khouzam, ruled that the trial court had erred by placing the burden of proof on Tara instead of on Stuart, who was seeking to impute income. The court stated, "the burden was placed upon the Former Wife below to avoid imputation of income," which contradicts Florida law that requires the party asserting underemployment to bear that burden.
The court emphasized that the magistrate's findings did not adequately consider Tara's unrebutted testimony regarding her employment situation and the challenges she faced. For instance, Tara had entered a line share program during the pandemic to maintain her work hours, which Stuart did not dispute. The court also noted that there was no evidence presented that Tara could have transferred to a Florida base, as all transfers had been closed for the year due to COVID-19 complications.
In addition, the court criticized the magistrate's conclusions about Tara's maternal grandmother's ability to care for the children while Tara worked. The magistrate had suggested that Tara could work more hours if her mother could take care of the children, but the court found that this assertion lacked substantial evidence. The court stated that the mere fact that the grandmother had helped occasionally did not support the conclusion that she would be available regularly.
The ruling has significant implications for future child support cases in Florida. It clarifies that the burden of proof lies with the party seeking to impute income, ensuring that the rights of parents who are underemployed are adequately protected. This decision may influence how courts evaluate similar cases involving child support and employment status.
Moving forward, the case will be remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's ruling. The trial court will need to accept Tara's unrebutted testimony and consider the evidence under the correct legal standard. There is no indication in the ruling that this decision can be appealed further, but it sets a precedent for future child support cases involving issues of underemployment.