State of Florida, Department of etc. v. Autumn Danielle Pare , 177 So. 3d 663 ( 2015 )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORIDA, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
ON BEHALF OF DENNIS DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
LANG DONSEN,
CASE NO. 1D15-624
Appellant,
v.
AUTUMN DANIELLE PARE,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed October 12, 2015.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.
David Rimmer, Judge.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and William H. Branch, Assistant Attorney
General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
No appearance for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
In this action under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, the
Department of Revenue, on behalf of Dennis Lang Donsen, appeals a final order
denying a petition for child support against Autumn Danielle Pare. We reverse and
remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine the appropriate amount of child
support.
Donsen and Pare are the parents of a minor child born on December 10, 1998.
Pare had sole custody of the child and provided support for the child until 2009,
when she agreed to allow the child to move to Oregon to live with Donsen for one
year. Since that time, the child has remained in Oregon in Donsen’s custody. In
2014, the Department of Revenue filed a petition on Donsen’s behalf seeking
support from Pare for the child. The trial court denied the petition because there was
no legal order determining Donsen’s paternity and because he did not have legal
custody of the child. This was error.
Both parents have an equal duty to support their minor children. Erwin v.
Everard, 561 So. 2d 445, 445 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); O’Brien v. O’Brien, 424 So. 2d
970, 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Although there is no formal order determining
paternity in this case, Pare admits that Donsen is the biological father of the child
and the record shows that his paternity has been confirmed by DNA testing. The
Act does not require a formal order of paternity in order to seek support. See §
88.4011(1), Fla. Stat. (2014) (authorizing individuals that reside in another state or
support enforcement agencies that are located in another state to seek a support order
pursuant to the Act). Rather, a person with physical custody may initiate
2
proceedings seeking child support even if the respondent has legal custody. State,
Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Harnois, 609 So. 2d 149, 149-50 (Fla. 2d DCA
1992). This ability arises from the fact that child support is a right which belongs to
the child. Morris v. Swanson, 940 So. 2d 1256, 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
The fact that the parties may be engaged in a custody dispute is not a reason
to deny a petition for support. § 88.3051(4), Fla. Stat. (2014) (“A responding
tribunal of this state may not condition the payment of a support order issued under
this act upon compliance by a party with provisions for visitation.”). Regardless,
there is no indication that there was a legal custody dispute when the petition for
support was filed in this case. While Pare averred that she attempted to contact law
enforcement about returning the child to Florida, there is no evidence that she
initiated any legal proceedings to seek the child’s return despite being aware of the
child’s location. Because Donsen has physical custody of the child, he was entitled
to seek child support from Pare; thus, the trial court erred in denying the petition for
support. See State, Dep’t of Revenue By and on Behalf of Taylor v. David, 684 So.
2d 308, 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
WETHERELL, ROWE, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
3