Sickels v. Sickels
221 So. 3d 778
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Former Husband and Former Wife divorced; three minor children (15-year-old twins and a 9-year-old, A.S.).
- Original parenting plan provided rotating timesharing and required Former Husband to pay child support.
- Former Husband lost his Florida job, accepted work in Virginia (near his extended family), and petitioned to relocate the children under Fla. Stat. § 61.13001.
- Trial court allowed the twins to relocate with Former Husband to Virginia but ordered A.S. to remain in Florida with Former Wife, thereby separating the siblings.
- The trial court also ordered Former Husband to pay all transportation costs for timesharing and concluded that, because the twins lived with Father and Father paid transportation, neither parent would owe child support to the other.
- Former Husband appealed; the Fifth District reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sickels) | Defendant's Argument (Robin Sickels) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court abused discretion by separating siblings | Father argued relocation of twins was appropriate; implied separation permissible | Mother argued siblings should remain together; separation not justified | Reversed — court must find a "compelling reason" supported by evidence before separating siblings |
| Whether trial court properly denied child support in split custody | Father argued no support owed after relocation/transportation arrangement | Mother argued both parents earn income and support should be calculated | Reversed — in split custody when both earn income, court must calculate/support obligations and may set off net support |
| Whether ordering Father to pay all transportation expenses was proper | Father contended allocation should reflect both parties' means | Mother contended Father should bear costs given higher income and relocation | Reversed — transportation costs must be apportioned according to parents' financial means |
| Remand instructions and required findings | Father sought affirmance of relocation and terms | Mother sought to uphold original judgment keeping A.S. in Florida without support award | Court instructed remand: make findings of compelling reason if separating siblings, compute child support per §61.30 if modified, and apportion transportation costs by financial ability |
Key Cases Cited
- Myrick v. Myrick, 523 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (siblings should not be separated except for most compelling cause)
- Arons v. Arons, 94 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1957) (same principle against distributing children among different homes)
- McKenna v. McKenna, 31 So. 3d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (split custody with incomes for both parties requires awarding support)
- Kelley v. Kelley, 987 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (parties’ reciprocal support obligations may be set off to a net award)
- Hindle v. Fuith, 33 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (transportation costs should be shared according to parents’ financial means)
- McKenna v. Fischer, 778 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (childrearing costs, including transportation, to be apportioned by financial ability)