179 So. 3d 455
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Parties are former spouses with two adopted special-needs minor children who receive a $590/month Florida adoption subsidy under § 409.166.
- Trial court awarded shared parental responsibility and equal time-sharing of the children.
- Using the child support guidelines, the court calculated Former Husband’s child support obligation at $160.44/month.
- The trial court initially ordered the $590 subsidy paid to Former Wife and credited against Husband’s support, resulting in Wife remitting $429.56/month to Husband.
- On rehearing the court amended the judgment to split the subsidy equally and eliminated Husband’s $160.44 child support obligation.
- The appellate court affirmed the subsidy split but reversed the elimination of child support and remanded to reinstate Husband’s $160.44/month obligation retroactive to Jan. 1, 2015, and to address arrearages equitably.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a state adoption subsidy for special-needs children be credited or offset against a parent’s child support obligation? | Tluzek (Former Wife): the subsidy can be used to satisfy/offset child support owed to her. | Former Husband: subsidy is not a substitute for parental child support; child support should remain separately calculated. | Subsidy may not be credited against child support. Child support is calculated first; subsidy is apportioned consistent with time-sharing. Husband’s $160.44/month support reinstated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamblen v. Hamblen, 54 P.3d 371 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (adoption subsidy should be apportioned consistent with visitation rather than offsetting child support)
- In re Marriage of Bolding-Roberts, 113 P.3d 1265 (Colo. App. 2005) (recognizing the child loses benefit if subsidy substitutes for parental support)
- Nabinger v. Nabinger, 82 So.3d 1075 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (discussing maximization of resources for a child’s needs and limits on using subsidies to replace parental support)