Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed August 24, 2022.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-1112
Lower Tribunal No. 16-24232
________________
Eleidy Miedes,
Appellant,
vs.
Steve B. Ideses,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ivonne
Cuesta, Judge.
Sandy T. Fox, P.A., and Sandy T. Fox, for appellant.
Abramowitz & Associates, and Jordan B. Abramowitz, for appellee.
Before SCALES, HENDON and GORDO, JJ.
GORDO, J.
Eleidy Miedes (“the Mother”) appeals from an order granting Steve
Ideses’ (“the Father’s”) petition for modification of the parenting plan and
child support. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). The
parties share one child together, born in August 2016. Prior to the child’s
birth, the trial court entered final judgment of paternity, ratifying and
incorporating the parties’ agreed upon parenting plan. In 2018, the Father
filed a petition for modification of the parenting plan and child support. The
trial court subsequently entered its written decision granting the Father’s
petition. The Mother appealed.
We find no error in the trial court’s detailed thirty-four-page order
granting modification of the parenting plan and child support, made after a
seven-day trial with evidence from the parties and experts, as it contained
explicit findings of fact supported by competent, substantial evidence and
properly analyzed the statutory factors of section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes.
See Sordo v. Camblin,
130 So. 3d 743, 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“[T]he
evidence was competent and substantial that there has been a substantial
change in circumstances and that the modification is in the best interests of
the parties’ [child].”); Levi v. Levi,
780 So. 2d 261, 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
(“When child support is modified, retroactivity is the rule rather than the
exception.”); Spano v. Bruce,
62 So. 3d 2, 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“Where the
2
circumstances that give rise to a modification of child support exist at the
time during which a petition for modification is filed, failure to order the
modification retroactive to the date of the filing of the petition constitutes an
abuse of discretion.”).
Affirmed.
3
