NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

STEPHANIE THOMPSON, n/k/a ) STEPHANIE McLAUGHLIN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D14-791 ) JERRY MALICKI, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed July 10, 2015.

A ppeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County; Lee Ann Schreiber, Judge. Christopher R. Bruce of Nugent Zborowski & Bruce, North Palm Beach, for Appellant. No appearance for Appellee.

CASANUEVA, Judge. Stephanie Thompson, now known as Stephanie McLaughlin (the Form er Wife), seeks review of a supplemental final judgment 1 denying her motion for relocation

1 The trial court entered a "Supplemental Final Judgment Denying Relocation and Granting Modification of Parental Time Sharing S chedule," followed by an "Order on Former Wife's Motion for Rehearing," which modifie s certain provisions of the supplemental final judgment, and a "Supplemental Final Judg ment on Child Support and Related Financial Claims (After Motion for Rehearing)," whi ch makes additional findings and incorporates by reference provisions of the prior supplemental final- 2 - of the parties' minor children and granting modification of tim esharing and child support. The Former Wife sought to relocate the parties' two minor daugh ters from Charlotte County to Palm Beach County, where the Former Wife lives with h er new husband. She also sought to alter the timesharing schedule regardless of the trial court's decision on relocation, and she sought a modification of child support. The trial court found that relocation was not in the children's best interest but granted a modification of timesharing and ordered child support in accordance with the ne w timesharing schedule. We affirm as to the modified timesharing schedule an d the denial of relocation; we reverse as to the amount of child support, which is based on imputed income not supported by sufficient findings or evidence. A trial court's imputation of income must be supported by compe tent, substantial evidence. Gerthe v. Gerthe, 857 So. 2d 306, 308 (F la. 2d DCA 2003). For purposes of calculating child support, section 61.30(2)(b), Flo rida Statutes (2011), provides that the trial court shall impute income to a voluntar ily unemployed or underemployed parent "absent a finding of fact by the court of physical or mental incapacity or other circumstanc es over which the parent has no control." Where income is to be imputed, "the employment potential and probable earnin gs level of the parent shall be determined based upon his or her recent work history, occupational qualifications, and prevailing ear nings level in the community if such information is available." § 61.30(2)(b); see Wendel v. Wendel, 852 So. 2d 27 7, 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). "Because of the uncertain nature of future employment, we have required

judgment. These orders shall be referred to collectively as th e supplemental final judgment.- 3 - particularized findings regarding work history, occupational qu alifications, and the current job market in the community to support the imputation o f income. Failure to make these findings results in reversal." Broga v. Broga, 40 F la. L. Weekly D867, D867 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 15, 2015) (citations omitted); see Artuso v. Dick, 843 So. 2d 942, 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). In this case, the trial court made express findings that the Fo rmer Wife is voluntarily underemployed and that there is no mental or physic al condition prohibiting full-time employment. These findings are properly supported by the record. However, the supplemental final judgment lacks sufficient findings regar ding recent work history, occupational qualifications, and the prevailing earnings level in the community to support an imputed income of $3467 per month. The testimony at the final hearing established that the Former Wife, a massage therapist and office manager, works twenty-four hours p er week and earns $800 every other week. Despite this uncontroverted testimony, the trial court found that the Former Wife works twenty hours per week. No evidence was p resented, and no findings were made, as to the Form er Wife's recent work history , occupational qualifications, or the prevailing earnings level in the communi ty, other than the fact that the Former Wife is a licensed massage therapist and had been em ployed full-time by the same employer in 2008. Reliance on past work history alone is insufficient to support imputation of income. Broga, 40 Fla. L. Weekly at D867

. We recognize that evidence was presented that the Former Wife's bills are paid by her new husband, and such reimbursed expenses or in-kin d payments may be considered as part of a parent's gross income to the extent tha t they reduce living- 4 - expenses. See § 61.30(2)(a)(13) . However, the supplemental fi nal judgment specifically states that the c ourt did not consider the support from the new husband when calculating the Former Wife's income. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the imputation of inco me to the Former Wife is not supported by s ufficient findings of fact, no r is it supported by competent, substantial evidence. Accordingly, we reverse as to the imputation of income and the amount of child support calculated pursuant to t he imputed income

amount. We remand for the trial court to take further evidence on this issue and recalculate the amount of child support as necessary. See Nich olas v. Nicholas, 870 So. 2d 245, 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). In all other aspects, we a ffirm. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

SILBERMAN and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.