Opinion
2D2024-0107
10-16-2024
DANIEL ERVIN ROUSON, SR., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM and NGIRI ASHIKI JACKSON, Appellees.
Charis A. Campbell of Golden Key Law Group, PLLC, Pinellas Park, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Sarah C. Prieto, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee Department of Revenue Child Support Program. No appearance for Appellee Ngiri Ashiki Jackson.
Appeal from the Department of Revenue Child Support Program.
Charis A. Campbell of Golden Key Law Group, PLLC, Pinellas Park, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Sarah C. Prieto, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee Department of Revenue Child Support Program.
No appearance for Appellee Ngiri Ashiki Jackson.
KELLY, Judge.
Daniel Ervin Rouson appeals from a final administrative support order entered by the Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Program (the Department). He argues, and the Department concedes, that reversal in part is required based on the Department's miscalculation of retroactive child support and its failure to attach a child support guidelines worksheet to the final order.
In determining retroactive child support, "[t]he court shall apply the guidelines schedule in effect at the time of the hearing subject to the obligor's demonstration of his or her actual income . . . during the retroactive period." § 61.30(17)(a), Fla. Stat. (2023); see also Gaut v. Dep't of Revenue, Child Support Enf't Program, 220 So.3d 552, 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (stating that if available, the Department must use state wage information for the retroactive time period in calculating retroactive child support); Salters v. Dep't of Revenue, Child Support Enf't Program ex rel. Mobley, 32 So.3d 777, 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (same); Finch v. Dep't of Revenue ex rel. John-Jules, 65 So.3d 1150, 1151-52 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (reversing a retroactive child support award because the court used the obligor's current income to calculate retroactive support despite evidence of his income during the retroactive time period). Here, the final order reflects that the Department was provided with records reflecting Rouson's actual income during the retroactive time period but that the Department failed to use this evidence to calculate his support obligation. We therefore reverse and remand for recalculation of the retroactive support award in accordance with section 61.30(1)(a).
Finally, as the parties correctly point out, the Department failed to incorporate a child support guidelines worksheet in the final order. Without a guidelines worksheet, we cannot determine whether an award of retroactive child support is supported by the evidence. Thus, on remand, the Department is directed to attach a child support guidelines worksheet to the amended final order. See McGill v. McGill, 355 So.3d 563, 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (reversing where trial court failed to make factual findings on the parties' incomes and failed to attach a child support guidelines worksheet to its judgment); Durham v. Dept of Revenue ex rel. Durham, 850 So.2d 653, 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that it was error for the court to determine child support without a child support guidelines worksheet). In all other respects, we affirm.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
BLACK and LUCAS, JJ, Concur
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.