How Does the Judge Decide Child Support?

How does the judge decide child support?

The short answer is that the judge doesn't decide child support at all. Child support is per Florida Statute 61.30 Child support guidelines, and is based on a few bits of information and a mathematical formula applied to it. The information required is the same information required for the Family Law Financial Affidavits and Parenting Plan. Once both parties' financial affidavits and the parties' parenting plans are available the child support amount can be calculated.

The information required is:

Both parties' net income;

Which parent is paying for and amount paid for after school care or child care (if any);

Which parent is paying for the child or children's medical insurance and uninsured medical expenses; and

Number of overnight visits the children spend with each parent.

All of this information, except for the number of overnight visits, is taken from the parties' financial affidavits. The number of overnight visits is taken from the parenting plan.

Within the Florida Statutes and also on the form Child Support Guidelines Worksheet there is a table to find the amount of child support that both parents need to contribute based on the parents' combined incomes. The table has rows to find combined income amounts, and columns for the number of children. Once that amount is found, all the other information is applied.

Frequently, parents' incomes are not identical, and the number of overnight visits are not exactly half and half. So a percentage of child support is assigned to each parent, and the difference between the two amounts is paid to the parent earning the lesser amount or having the child with them the most. The Florida Supreme Court has a web form that automatically calculates the amounts. But, preparing the Child Support Guidelines Worksheet is not difficult, with a calculator and a little time.

Because of the information required to calculate child support, the financial affidavits and the parenting plan must be completed first.

Sometimes, especially in magistrate's court, the parties will be told to simply provide their last three pay stubs, and somehow, child support is calculated from that information alone. Beware this process, as it does not provide a full financial picture.

The court recognizes that although a child support order is a binding court order -- circumstances change over time. The basis for a modification of a child support order is the existence of substantial change that affects any of the parties.

"Substantial change" has many definitions. Specific definitions of substantial change are best found in case law. However, in general, substantial change for modification of child support is involuntary, unanticipated and permanent.

LEARN MORE.

How much does a Florida divorce cost?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? How long is a piece of string? It depends. If the divorcing couple can come to agreements about how to divide their assets and debts; and agree on their mutual responsibilities to their children, our services are ideal. A typical base price for a document preparer to prepare divorce documents is around $299. with some add ons depending on your situation. If you have children, then you'll need a Parenting Plan which may be an additional $75 or so; and if you need a Marital Settlement Agreement to divide your property and debt, that may also be an additional cost. Most document preparers also prepare the Child Support Guidelines Worksheet, and the Family Law Financial Affidavit for an additional fee. (You usually have the option of preparing any of these yourself, to avoid the fee.) There are some other possible add ons which you may or may not need. So, all told, using a document preparation service, your divorce might cost around $500 - $600 for the prepared documents. The filing fees, which are paid directly to the court are $408.; and if you need to have the other spouse served by a sheriff, an additional $50. So, using a document preparation service, the document preparation fees and court filing fees combined are usually around $1000.

A thousand dollars may sound like a lot of money, but if you look at what you might spend with an attorney – you'll change your mind. According to Lawyers.com on average, a Florida divorce, using an attorney, costs $13,500. which includes $10,700. in attorneys' fees. So, on average, consumers spend over $2,800. over and above the $10,700. attorneys' services and fees. According to the linked article: “After attorneys' fees, the rest of divorce costs come from expenses, which includes fees for court filings, mediation, and the cost of copying and serving documents. Expenses also include compensation for expert witnesses and consultants, such as child custody evaluators, appraisers, or financial analysts. Average expenses in Florida divorces were $2,800.”

We would never tell anyone whether they should or should not hire an attorney. Sometimes there is no other way. But, we will tell anyone and everyone that if there is any way that a divorcing couple can come to agreements about their assets, debts, and children; they'll have more dollars left over to secure their assets; pay down their debts; and take care of their children.

Evie's Day in Court

Four years at university, three years of law school and eleven years of practice were not enough to win a case against Evie. Jack Campbell, Esquire had encountered women like her before. At age 29, having already made serious life mistakes, Evie was not about to let her past ruin her life.

On her day in court Evie overcame her lack of education and history of drug addiction to be awarded frequent and unsupervised timesharing with her twin five year olds. Despite the fact that her former husband had retained counsel and had insisted that he, the father, should have sole custody, the judge awarded shared parental custody. And, even though Evie had to appear with no attorney to represent her the court followed the Florida family law rules and awarded her everything she requested in her petition for modification.

Evie knew down in her soul that her life, her case, was more important to her than it was to any attorney. Her attorney, while she had one, was all about the money, and had withdrawn the minute she could no longer pay him $500. per month whether he did any work or there was any court activity or not. Opposing attorney, Campbell, seemed to want to draw things out and string things along as long as possible. Evie just wanted to see her kids more than one supervised overnight visit per month.

By the time she had her day in court, Evie had been waiting almost two years. She had voluntarily let her children live with their father so that she could have an opportunity to get a better job, make sure she could stay clean, and get a stable living arrangement. But, the father, Charles, took the opportunity to take over everything, and before she knew it Evie was obliged to pay $500 in child support even though her income was much less than Charles'.

For every short story, there is a long story. Evie had never finished high school due to her attention deficit disorder and then falling so far behind in her classes that it was too overwhelming for her to even try to catch up. After a free fall through the cracks in the system, she quit school as soon as she legally could. She drifted for a couple of years, partying with her friends, having her time, living off the parents. She went to work at one of the many bars in the beach town where she lived. Being a barmaid was a perfect fit for her outgoing personality. Smiling and flirting, fetching and carrying drinks, earning decent money. The work atmosphere was fun. Everyone worked together, Work hard – play hard was her mantra.

By age 23 she racked up two DUI's, was arrested for possession of a controlled substance (oxycodone), and married one of her regular customers, Charles. He was a couple of years older and a Marine. At first Evie was entranced and enchanted by Charles' direct approach to life and his ambition to pursue a military career. Soon after their wedding Charles received orders to relocate to north Florida, Fort Walton Beach in Okaloosa County. The honeymoon ended quickly. Charles was sent out for training and then deployed overseas, leaving Evie in an unfamiliar town. She went to work in the only trade she knew, tending bar, made new friends and entertained herself with partying, drinking, and pills. Charles would come and go, and for a long time had no idea that Evie was using pills. She was an expert at hiding her addiction as she had hidden her usage from her parents for years.

Evie woke up one morning in her car which was parked outside the bar where she worked. She was in her work clothes from the night before. Her keys were in the ignition and the contents of her purse were dumped out on the seat next to her. A half full cup of what smelled like scotch was in the cup holder. The smell of which made her retch. Her head hurt and she was thirsty. She did not remember going to work the night before, or working, or leaving work, or going to her car, or

drinking, or apparently taking all of the pills that she had in her purse. At the moment of not remembering, she realized two things. That she was lucky to be alive, and that she did not want Charles to know. It was easy enough for Charles not to know as he was deployed on assignment somewhere, and not expected back for another week.

Evie put her things back in her purse, poured the contents of the cup out the window, smoothed her hair, and drove home – back roads all the way. She did not want to be pulled over or have to speak to a law enforcement officer for any reason, not now, not today. Once home, she slept, got up, raided the fridge, and slept some more. That evening when Charles' skype call came through, she ignored it. She had to think, she needed time to clear her brain so she could think before she spoke to him. She knew he'd detect that something was off with her if he saw her on skype. Before they married she had promised him that all of her drinking and drugging activities were in the past. She felt bad for letting him down, and she felt let down too. The marriage thing was not what she expected, not what she thought she was getting into. He was gone all the time. Home maybe four or five days a month – a week at the most. She was left to her own devices, which obviously were not very good devices, as she had gone back to the same life she had before they were married, except without her life long friends around her.

So she left. She packed up and left and went back to her parent's house in Daytona Beach. She left Charles a note saying that she had some things to work out and had gone back to her parent's house and didn't know when she'd be back. She knew Charles would be hurt and angry; and she knew her parents would be judgmental and angry. She avoided Charles' skypes and calls as long as she could, but finally a few days after he returned from his mission she picked up her cell when he called. Tears and shouting ensued. Despite Evie not wanting Charles to know about her pill addiction she finally confessed to him. He told her not to call or contact him until and unless she had checked herself into rehab.

Evie's parents were not amused that she had left her husband after less than two years for no other reason than he worked a lot. Evie's dad let her know that she could stay with them for one month maximum, and then she needed to get her own place or go back to her husband. Evie went to work right away at her former beach bar. Before the one month was up, however, Evie learned she was pregnant with twins. Evie's mom was ecstatic to be a grandma, Evie's dad didn't say much at all. They both told her she had to tell Charles.

Charles hung up on her every time she called. He would hang up as soon as he asked whether she was in rehab and she said no. After several tries, she quit calling. Charles filed for divorce, Evie agreed to it and did not attend the court hearing.

Evie's parents caved and let her stay with them until after the babies were born, but, they said, then she would definitely have to find her own place. Evie stayed clean the entire time she was pregnant. Did not drink a drop and did not take one pill.

After the babies were born, the three of them moved in with one of Evie's lifelong friends and her two children. Evie applied for social assistance, food stamps, and child support. Charles denied that the children were his. Only after a court ordered DNA test did Charles recognize the twins as his own. And once he did, he took full advantage of Evie's request for him to take them for a while so that she could get back on her feet and get clean. He went to the Department of Children and Families and convinced them that due to Evie drug addiction she was not fit to raise the children and he should have sole custody. (Evie had not used any drugs since she had found out she was pregnant.) And then Charles went to the Department of Revenue and requested child support, and he was awarded $500 per month.

But everything changed the day Evie finally got her day in court.

Proposed Changes to Child Time-Sharing Laws

Senate Bill 250 has passed in both houses and is awaiting Governor Scott's signature. This law change affects how the courts will decide child custody and time-sharing. According to the bill analysis, the significant changes and potential effect are:

"The bill creates a presumption that equal time-sharing is presumed to be in the best interest of a child. Assuming that placing a presumption in law simplifies time-sharing actions, parties to a time-sharing action may spend less on litigation costs."

And -

"The bill provides additional guidelines for the court to use in determining a time-sharing schedule of a minor child. Current law provides that the public policy of the state is for each minor to have frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents separate or divorce. Consistent with existing legislative intent, this bill creates a rebuttable presumption that approximately equal timesharing with a minor child by both parents is in the best interest of the child. A party may overcome the presumption by providing evidence based on factors that affect the welfare and interests of the child and the circumstance of the family.

Current law provides a list of factors for the court to consider in establishing or modifying a time-sharing schedule, based on the best interests of the child. In addition to the factors presently provided in law, this bill adds the following:

The amount of timesharing requested by each parent; and

• The frequency that a parent would likely leave the child in the care of a nonrelative on evenings and weekends when the other parent would be available and willing to provide care.
• The bill requires a court to support an order that provides for unequal timesharing with written findings of fact."

If the Governor approves this bill and signs it into law it is scheduled to be in effect on October 1, 2016. 

In my opinion, although the presumption that 50/50 times-haring is in the best interest of the child sounds like a good idea, it could have significant drawbacks. Parents would be required to overcome the presumption that 50/50 time-sharing is appropriate, and may pro se litigants are going to struggle to do that. Would they be required to have the other parent evaluated? Would this bill lead to additional litigation as the parties attempt to overcome the rebuttable presumption supporting 50/50 time-sharing? What do you think?  

Jurisdiction and the UCCJEA

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) is a federal law that must be considered in all Florida child custody and child timesharing cases. The UCCJEA Affidavit states where the child has resided for the past five years; who the child resided or resides with; and whether there are any conflicting court orders from any other state or jurisdiction. A UCCJEA Affidavit must be filed along with a Dissolution of Marriage with Children; and any subsequent modification of time-sharing or custody.

There are two requirements under the UCCJEA for making or modifying a custody determination:

(1) the court must have a basis of jurisdiction under the Act, and

(2) the parties must be given notice and opportunity to be heard.

The UCCJEA's jurisdictional provisions vary, based on whether a case involves an initial custody or visitation determination; or modification of an existing order. 

Initial Jurisdiction

The UCCJEA establishes four bases for initial jurisdiction—

• Home State,
• Significant connection,
• More appropriate forum, and
• Vacuum jurisdiction.

Home State jurisdiction.

Under the UCCJEA, a court has home State jurisdiction if the court is located in the child's home State (when the proceedings begin) or if the court is located in the State that was the child's home State within 6 months of the proceedings' commencement and the child's parent (or a person acting as his or her parent) continues to live in the State even after the child has been removed. This extended home State rule allows a left-behind parent to commence a custody proceeding within 6 months of a child's removal from the home State.

Example. A 2-year-old child, born and raised in Florida, is abducted by his father before either parent has filed for custody. The boy and his father move to Georgia. The left-behind mother may file for an initial custody determination in Florida (which has home State jurisdiction) within 6 months of the child's removal. The child's absence from Florida does not deprive the State of jurisdiction. If the father commences a custody proceeding in Georgia while Florida is the child's home State under the UCCJEA, the mother can seek dismissal of the Georgia proceeding based on lack of jurisdiction.

Significant connection jurisdiction.

When a child has no home State or when a home State declines jurisdiction, another State court may exercise jurisdiction if the child has sufficient ties to the State and substantial evidence concerning the child is available in the State. A child need not be physically present in a State for the State to exercise significant connection jurisdiction. More than one State may have jurisdiction on this basis, but only one State may exercise jurisdiction. The statute resolves the conflict in favor of the first-filed proceeding. However, the courts are required to communicate, and the court in the State of the first-filed proceeding may defer to the court in the second State following judicial communication.

Example. A father and his child go to visit the child's paternal grandparents in Colorado. The father is reminded of the beauty of the mountains and decides not to return to Florida, where his marriage had been faltering and his job prospects have dimmed. The family had been living in Florida for 4 years. Within 2 months of his arrival in Colorado, the father files for custody there on significant connection grounds. The Colorado court lacks jurisdiction and may not proceed to the merits of the case unless Florida, the child's home State, declines jurisdiction in favor of Colorado. However, if the mother does not commence a custody proceeding in Florida within 6 months of the child's removal, Colorado becomes the child's home State and the Colorado court may then exercise jurisdiction and decide custody.

Example. A mother and father are high-tech professionals who have moved frequently during the previous several years to work for Internet companies. After 4 months in California, the father leaves the mother and their infant and returns to Florida, where the family had lived for 5 months preceding their move to California. The infant has been in daycare and has pediatricians and relatives in both States. The father's cross-country move prompts the couple to assess the viability of their marriage, and they decide to divorce. However, they cannot agree on custody, and the mother and father simultaneously commence separate custody proceedings in California and Florida. The parents have not lived in any State long enough for their child to have established a home State. Both California and Florida arguably have significant connection jurisdiction, but under the UCCJEA only one of them should exercise it. If a court learns from the required pleadings that a proceeding has been commenced in a sister State, the court is required by the UCCJEA to stay its proceeding and communicate with the other court to decide which proceeding should continue. If they cannot agree, the court with the first-filed case may move forward and the other court should dismiss its proceeding.

More appropriate forum jurisdiction.

Under the UCCJEA, a third basis for initial jurisdiction exists when both the home State and significant connection State(s) decline jurisdiction in favor of another, more appropriate State on grounds of inconvenient forum or unjustifiable conduct.

Example. The parents of a 10-year-old girl are separated but have not filed for custody. Pursuant to her parents' informal agreement, the girl remains with the father in Florida, where she goes to school. She spends the majority of her time with a housekeeper because her father is frequently out of town on business. The child spends one weekend a month in West Virginia with her mother. Because the mother works a night shift involving frequent overtime, many of the girl's weekend visits are spent at the homes of friends in her mother's neighborhood. Both sets of the child's grandparents live in Maryland. The father plans to move to Maryland at the end of the school year so the child can go to her grandparents after school, and he has a contract to purchase a house in Maryland when the school year ends. However, before the move, the father becomes increasingly concerned about the mother's absence during the child's visits. He files for custody in Maryland. Based on these facts, it is conceivable that courts in the District of Columbia (the child's home State) and West Virginia (a significant connection State) might decline jurisdiction in favor of Maryland, the child's soon-to-be home State. A decision to decline jurisdiction is discretionary and fact dependent.

Vacuum jurisdiction.

The UCCJEA provides that if no court has home State, significant connection, or more appropriate forum jurisdiction, an alternate court may fill the vacuum and exercise jurisdiction over an initial custody proceeding. This provision would apply to situations in which children fail to remain in any State long enough to form attachments (such as - homeless children, children of migrant workers or military personnel, or children sent from relative to relative for temporary care).

A UCCJEA Affidavit must be filed in every Florida Dissolution of Marriage with Children; and all subsequent modifications of time-sharing or custody. 

How the Judge decides child custody.

Have you ever wondered what factors Florida family court judges weigh in determining how to decide child custody cases? It isn't which parent the judge likes the best. And it isn't always the mother. Years ago, Florida had what is called a "tender years doctrine" which said that the courts should give preference to the mother in child custody cases, when the children were young. That doctrine has not been used for many years, now the courts must rule in the best interests of the child or children in all family law matters. Following is the a through t list in the Florida Statutes.

61.13 Support of children; parenting and time-sharing; powers of court.—

(3) For purposes of establishing or modifying parental responsibility and creating, developing, approving, or modifying a parenting plan, including a time-sharing schedule, which governs each parent’s relationship with his or her minor child and the relationship between each parent with regard to his or her minor child, the best interest of the child shall be the primary consideration. A determination of parental responsibility, a parenting plan, or a time-sharing schedule may not be modified without a showing of a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances and a determination that the modification is in the best interests of the child. Determination of the best interests of the child shall be made by evaluating all of the factors affecting the welfare and interests of the particular minor child and the circumstances of that family, including, but not limited to:

(a) The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship, to honor the time-sharing schedule, and to be reasonable when changes are required.

(b) The anticipated division of parental responsibilities after the litigation, including the extent to which parental responsibilities will be delegated to third parties.

(c) The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to determine, consider, and act upon the needs of the child as opposed to the needs or desires of the parent.

(d) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity.

(e) The geographic viability of the parenting plan, with special attention paid to the needs of school-age children and the amount of time to be spent traveling to effectuate the parenting plan. This factor does not create a presumption for or against relocation of either parent with a child.

(f) The moral fitness of the parents.

(g) The mental and physical health of the parents.

(h) The home, school, and community record of the child.

(i) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference.

(j) The demonstrated knowledge, capacity, and disposition of each parent to be informed of the circumstances of the minor child, including, but not limited to, the child’s friends, teachers, medical care providers, daily activities, and favorite things.

(k) The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to provide a consistent routine for the child, such as discipline, and daily schedules for homework, meals, and bedtime.

(l) The demonstrated capacity of each parent to communicate with and keep the other parent informed of issues and activities regarding the minor child, and the willingness of each parent to adopt a unified front on all major issues when dealing with the child.

(m) Evidence of domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, child abandonment, or child neglect, regardless of whether a prior or pending action relating to those issues has been brought. If the court accepts evidence of prior or pending actions regarding domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, child abandonment, or child neglect, the court must specifically acknowledge in writing that such evidence was considered when evaluating the best interests of the child.

(n) Evidence that either parent has knowingly provided false information to the court regarding any prior or pending action regarding domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, child abandonment, or child neglect.

(o) The particular parenting tasks customarily performed by each parent and the division of parental responsibilities before the institution of litigation and during the pending litigation, including the extent to which parenting responsibilities were undertaken by third parties.

(p) The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to participate and be involved in the child’s school and extracurricular activities.

(q) The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to maintain an environment for the child which is free from substance abuse.

(r) The capacity and disposition of each parent to protect the child from the ongoing litigation as demonstrated by not discussing the litigation with the child, not sharing documents or electronic media related to the litigation with the child, and refraining from disparaging comments about the other parent to the child.

(s) The developmental stages and needs of the child and the demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to meet the child’s developmental needs.

(t) Any other factor that is relevant to the determination of a specific parenting plan, including the time-sharing schedule.

Support Unconnected with Divorce

John and Daisy were proud of their independence. They married young and enjoyed the joy and privilege of watching both of their children grow up, marry and have children of their own. Their oldest granddaughter was engaged to be married, and John and Daisy looked forward to meeting their great grandchildren whenever they arrive. The couple lived modestly and well within their means. As children of the depression, they both knew how to be frugal. But, they also treated themselves to a vacation once a year and dinner out at least once a month. They enjoyed good health, and stayed active by walking at least one mile daily. Daisy was also careful about their diet, making sure that they always ate wholesome and healthy foods.

Life can change on a dime.

They were walking, as they always did, around the long block. John stumbled and fell. When he fell he hit his head on the sidewalk. Daisy did not panic. Instead, she knelt beside him and talked to him; somehow knowing that she had to keep him awake.. He was semi-coherent. She told him he would be fine, and quickly called 911 on her cell phone. A fire truck and ambulance arrived within minutes; loaded John on a gurney and took him to the hospital. Daisy rushed home and followed. After waiting and wondering for hours, Daisy learned that John would probably be fine. The bump on his head was minor, and there was no concussion. But he had suffered a stroke which had caused the fall to begin with. The doctor wanted to keep John at the hospital, at least overnight maybe longer. Over the next few days, John got better, mostly better. He could talk but didn't have the full use of one arm and one leg. He needed help to get around. The doctor told her it was encouraging that he was talking again so soon. Daisy and John's children came to visit, they both offered to stay in town until John was better. Daisy declined, told them that John is getting better and he'll be home soon.

The days turned into weeks. And although John was better -- his recovery was not complete. He still couldn't walk by himself, and his left arm didn't work at all. The doctor advised that John should go to a nursing home. Daisy knew all too well that most people that go to a nursing home never come out. She talked it over with both of her children. They both told her that she needs to rely on the doctor, and they both said they would come and stay with her and help in any way possible. John's recovery was slow, and the doctors released him to a nursing home as planned. Daisy went everyday to visit him. She sat with him and watched TV, told him news and gossip about family and friends, and tried to make him smile.

The first month that John's social security income was redirected to the nursing home, Daisy barely noticed being preoccupied with John's recovery and return home. The second month, she paid everything again herself from her check and their savings. John's social security was two thirds of their family income. And now his income was gone. She struggled to pay all the bills on her own. She asked her son and daughter for financial assistance, and they happily obliged. But, Daisy knew neither could afford to make up for her financial shortfall for very long. They had their own families and children to look after.

Visiting hours at the nursing home began at 10:00 in the morning. Daisy tried to maintain her usual daily routine, although it was hard without John by her side. She still walked the long walk around the block. Kept up her one mile a day. One fine morning as she was walking, she just couldn't go further by herself. Her thoughts wouldn't stop. She kept wondering how she was supposed to manage on her own. She knew in her heart that John would get better, and she knew it was up to her to make sure that he had a home to come back to. She stopped that day at the playground where the young mothers sit and watch their children play. She watched the little ones on the swings as she sat on the bench, thinking hard about what to do. Thinking too hard, most likely. Out of nowhere a bouncy ball landed in her lap. Startled she looked up and saw a happy toddler chasing after it, and an apologetic mom chasing the toddler.

Mom tossed the ball to her daughter, and sent her back out to play. The women started talking as women do, about their children and then about their lives and then about their husbands. It turned out the young mother was suddenly single, her husband having left for reasons unknown. The young mother was determined that he wouldn't get away with it, he was not just going to walk away from the family. She hoped he would come to his senses and come back. The young mother confided to Daisy that she had filed a Petition for Support Unconnected with Divorce. The young mother said she didn't know if she wanted a divorce or not, but she was quite sure she needed to feed the children. It occurred to Daisy that maybe she could file that too.

Daisy went to the law library to try to find the answer. The law clerks were helpful, but she still wasn't sure. Then she went on the internet and found out a little more. It wasn't clear whether this process would work in her own situation. Daisy then discovered that her local legal aid society had a walk -in legal clinic once a month, where attorneys would answer legal questions free of charge. She went. And here is what she learned:

Help for the Stay-at-Home Spouse when their partner has to move into a nursing home:

When one of the spouses can no longer live at home and must be moved to an assisted living facility, memory care facility, or nursing home, they usually become Medicaid patients which means that the government will pay all of their living and medical expenses at the facility, but will take their monthly income as reimbursement. Many times, this can leave the spouse remaining at home destitute.

Florida allows a person to file a Petition for Support Unconnected with Dissolution of Marriage (with no Dependent or Minor Children), Form 12.904(b). This allows the couple to remain married, but can be used as a method to ensure support.

This form may be used if a dissolution of marriage action has not been filed, and the spouse filing the Petition is requesting alimony, more recently referred to as “spousal support”. This Petition, Form 12.904(b), does not address the issues of property or debts. It only deals with support.

The stay-at-home spouse can file this Petition, along with the other documents required by the State of Florida to be filed at the same time, and the final result of this action would be for the Court to enter an Order directing that the income of the spouse moving to a facility (presumably Social Security and any type of retirement income) would first be paid to the spouse that is left behind, still living in the home that they shared. Any additional amounts of monthly retirement income that are not “awarded” to be paid to the stay-at-home spouse would be taken by the government, but at least the stay-at-home spouse will be taken care of.

Daisy was elated at the discovery. She filed it through the courts and was awarded support. Some of John's check still went to the nursing home, but Daisy was awarded enough to carry on. She knew that John was coming home, and without this support, he would not have a home to come home to.

Co-authored by Gayle Coffman and Ruth Tick