Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed August 25, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-417

Lower Tribunal Nos. 13200003926FC, CS No. 2001504905

________________

Lucas Perez,

Appellant,

vs.

State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Child Support 

Program, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Child 

Support Program.

Lucas Perez, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein (Tallahassee), 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Florida Department of 

Revenue.

Before EMAS, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. 

EMAS, J.
2

ON PARTIAL CONFESSION OF ERROR

Lucas Perez appeals from a final administrative support order 

rendered by the State Department of Revenue, Child Support Program. The 

order established the length of retroactive child support (twenty-three 

months), calculated the total amount of retroactive child support ($6,032.58), 

and credited Perez for payments made during the retroactive period

($163.50). We conclude that the order, and the calculations and 

determinations contained in that order, are supported by the record, and that 

the commencement date for calculating retroactive support (December 1, 

2018) was proper, because it was after the parties had separated and were 

no longer residing together with the child. See § 61.30(17), Fla. Stat. (2021) 

(providing: “In an initial determination of child support, whether in a paternity 

action, dissolution of marriage action, or petition for support during the 

marriage, the court has discretion to award child support retroactive to the 

date when the parents did not reside together in the same household with 

the child, not to exceed a period of 24 months preceding the filing of the 

petition, regardless of whether that date precedes the filing of the petition.”) 

However, and as the Department of Revenue properly and 

commendably concedes, the Title IV-D Standard Parenting Time Plan was 

not incorporated into the final support order as required, see § 409.2563, 
3

Fla. Stat. (2021) (requiring the Department of Revenue to include a copy of 

the Title IV-D Standard Parenting Time Plan when serving the Notice of 

Proceeding to Establish Administrative Support Order), and further 

concedes that Perez may be entitled to a deviation from his current support 

obligation based upon the parenting plan. See § 61.30(11)(a)10, Fla. Stat. 

(2021) (“The court may adjust the total minimum child support award, or 

either or both parents' share of the total minimum child support award, based 

upon . . . the particular parenting plan, a court-ordered time-sharing 

schedule, or a time-sharing arrangement exercised by agreement of the 

parties, such as where the child spends a significant amount of time, but less 

than 20 percent of the overnights, with one parent, thereby reducing the 

financial expenditures incurred by the other parent; or the refusal of a parent 

to become involved in the activities of the child.”)

We therefore reverse that portion of the order on appeal establishing 

Perez’s current support obligation, and remand this cause to the lower 

tribunal for the specific purpose of incorporating the standard parenting time 

plan and to determine, in light of that parenting time plan, whether a deviation 

from the minimum child support award is appropriate. The order is, in all 

other respects, affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.