IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
CRYSTAL LANCASTER, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D17-0912
ERIK S. LANCASTER,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed November 6, 2017.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Suwannee County.
David Fina, Judge.
Lindsey Lander, Trenton, for Appellant.
Robert A. Sandow, Lake City, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the final judgment dissolving the marriage between
Crystal Lancaster (“the wife”) and Erik Lancaster (“the husband”). Among other
issues, the wife challenges the provision relating to child support, arguing the trial
court erred in deviating from the child support guidelines and denying her child
support to the detriment of the children. The father defends the final judgment on
the basis that it incorporated the negotiated settlement agreement between the
parties, which provided that neither parent would be responsible for paying child
support to the other parent.
A trial court has an independent duty to determine the appropriateness of child
support provisions in a marital settlement agreement before incorporating them into
a final judgment of dissolution. See Cross v. Cross, 490 So. 2d 958, 960 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1986); Wendel v. Wendel, 852 So. 2d 277, 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). This duty
exists because child support is a right that belongs to the child. See Dep't of Revenue
v. Reyes, 181 So. 3d 1270, 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (citing Imami v. Imami, 584
So. 2d 596, 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)). “It is not a requirement imposed by one parent
on the other; rather it is a dual obligation imposed on the parents by the state.” Id.
(citations omitted). Accordingly, parents may not contract away or waive the rights
of their child for support. Armour v. Allen, 377 So. 2d 798, 799-800 (Fla. 1st
DCA1979); Serio v. Serio, 830 So. 2d 278, 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
The statutory guidelines set forth in section 61.30, Florida Statutes, are the
starting point for the child support determination. See Morrow v. Frommer, 913 So.
2d 1195, 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The trial court is permitted to deviate plus or
minus five percent from the presumptive guideline amount after considering all
relevant factors and can deviate more than five percent upon a written finding
explaining why ordering payment of the guideline amount would be unjust or
2
inappropriate. § 61.30(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016). In cases where the parenting plan
provides that each child spend a “substantial amount of time” with each parent, the
methodology of section 61.30(11)(b) is used to calculate child support.
In the instant case, the final judgment incorporated the parties’ agreement that
neither is required to pay child support to the other. Although the court concluded
that this arrangement is in the “children’s best interests,” neither the agreement nor
the final judgment addressed the needs of the children, the overall financial
circumstances of the parties, or any other factor in section 61.30. In the absence of
information concerning the manner in which the child support determination was
made, we are unable to meaningfully review whether the trial court discharged its
independent obligation to assess whether the parties’ agreement serves the best
interests of the children.
Accordingly, we reverse the provision of the final judgment relating to child
support and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In all other
respects, the final judgment is affirmed.
LEWIS, RAY, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
3