IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D15-713
DAGMARA DARIAS and
REINALDO RODRIGUEZ,
Appellees.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed January 6, 2016.
An appeal from an order of the Department of Revenue.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Assistant Attorney
General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
No Appearance for Appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The Florida Department of Revenue raises two issues in this appeal of a
Final Administrative Paternity and Support Order determining the child support
obligation of Appellee Reinaldo Rodriguez (the father). In the first issue, the
Department argues that the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred by concluding
that he lacked authority to enter a support order exceeding the amounts set forth in
the Department’s Proposed Final Administrative Paternity and Support Order
based on new information developed at an evidentiary hearing that would increase
the father’s child support obligation under the statutory child support guidelines. In
the second issue, the Department argues that the Final Administrative Paternity and
Support Order is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Consistent with
our opinion in Department of Revenue v. Reyes, No. 1D15-707 (Fla. 1st DCA
December 31, 2015), we resolve both issues by concluding that the ALJ was
required to establish the father’s child support obligation based on the evidence
presented at the hearing. By limiting the father’s child support obligation to the
amounts contained in the proposed order, notwithstanding the evidence presented,
the Final Administrative Paternity and Support Order is contrary to Florida law and
not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Accordingly, we vacate the
order and remand for further proceedings.
WETHERELL, ROWE, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
2