A Florida court has reversed a child support ruling involving Jerra N. Gillespie, formerly known as Jerra N. Holdsworth, and her ex-husband Scott Holdsworth. The court found that the trial court improperly calculated Gillespie's income after she relocated to Missouri. This decision affects how child support obligations can be determined when a parent moves to a different state.

The case, Jerra N. Gillespie v. Scott Holdsworth, was filed under docket number 2D20-3429. The ruling was issued by the District Court of Appeal of Florida on January 19, 2022. The court's decision highlights the importance of accurately assessing a parent's income based on their current living situation and job market.

Background

In 2010, the trial court dissolved the marriage between Jerra N. Gillespie and Scott Holdsworth. They have two children together, and the final judgment required Holdsworth to pay $1,700 per month in child support. Gillespie was awarded majority timesharing of the children, as Holdsworth worked in the merchant marine and spent long periods at sea.

Over the years, Gillespie sought permission from the court to relocate to Missouri with the children. Her requests were denied until September 2018, when she filed a "Verified Supplemental Petition for Relocation." By June 2019, despite the court's denial, Gillespie had already moved to Missouri, where she took a full-time substitute teaching position earning $57,600 annually. Previously, she had earned as much as $78,000 while teaching in Marco Island, Florida.

After moving, Gillespie petitioned to modify the parenting plan, seeking a long-distance parenting arrangement. In response, Holdsworth sought to change the parenting time and terminate his child support obligation while establishing a new obligation for Gillespie. The parties reached a mediation agreement on the parenting schedule but left the child support issue to the trial court.

The Ruling

The court ruled that the trial court had improperly imputed an annual income of $78,000 to Gillespie, stating that "competent substantial evidence does not support this amount." The judge emphasized that the trial court's decision was based on Gillespie's previous earnings in Florida rather than her current job situation in Missouri.

During the evidentiary hearing, the trial court found Gillespie to be voluntarily underemployed and imposed the $78,000 income figure. However, the appellate court determined that the trial court did not consider the job market in Gillespie's new community or the efforts she made to find suitable employment.

The appellate court concluded that the trial court's decision was flawed because it lacked evidence of available jobs in Fairgrove, Missouri, that matched the income level of $78,000. The ruling stated, "The imputation of income under Florida law requires more than simply finding a party's unemployment or underemployment to be voluntary; it requires consideration of [the parent's] bona fide efforts to regain employment, and a finding that available jobs exist."

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future child support cases, particularly those involving parents who relocate to different states. The decision reinforces the requirement that courts must consider the current job market and the specific circumstances of each parent's employment situation when determining child support obligations.

The court's ruling may set a precedent for how income is imputed in similar cases, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence regarding available jobs and the parent's efforts to secure employment. This could lead to more equitable outcomes for parents who relocate and may help ensure that child support calculations reflect the realities of their new living situations.

What's Next

The appellate court reversed the child support award and remanded the case for further proceedings. The trial court will need to hold an evidentiary hearing to reassess Gillespie's income based on the appropriate factors outlined in the ruling. It remains to be seen whether Holdsworth will appeal this decision or if there are related cases pending.