NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES 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. 

Appeal 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 Former 

Wife), seeks review of a supplemental final judgment1 denying her motion for relocation 

 1The trial court entered a "Supplemental Final Judgment Denying 

Relocation and Granting Modification of Parental Time Sharing Schedule," followed by 

an "Order on Former Wife's Motion for Rehearing," which modifies certain provisions of 

the supplemental final judgment, and a "Supplemental Final Judgment on Child Support 

and Related Financial Claims (After Motion for Rehearing)," which makes additional 

findings and incorporates by reference provisions of the prior supplemental final 
- 2 -

of the parties' minor children and granting modification of timesharing and child support. 

The Former Wife sought to relocate the parties' two minor daughters from Charlotte 

County to Palm Beach County, where the Former Wife lives with her 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 new timesharing 

schedule. We affirm as to the modified timesharing schedule and 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 competent, 

substantial evidence. Gerthe v. Gerthe, 857 So. 2d 306, 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). For 

purposes of calculating child support, section 61.30(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2011), 

provides that the trial court shall impute income to a voluntarily unemployed or 

underemployed parent "absent a finding of fact by the court of physical or mental 

incapacity or other circumstances over which the parent has no control." Where income 

is to be imputed, "the employment potential and probable earnings level of the parent 

shall be determined based upon his or her recent work history, occupational 

qualifications, and prevailing earnings level in the community if such information is 

available." § 61.30(2)(b); see Wendel v. Wendel, 852 So. 2d 277, 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 the supplemental final 

judgment. 
- 3 -

particularized findings regarding work history, occupational qualifications, and the 

current job market in the community to support the imputation of income. Failure to 

make these findings results in reversal." Broga v. Broga, 40 Fla. 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 Former Wife is 

voluntarily underemployed and that there is no mental or physical condition prohibiting 

full-time employment. These findings are properly supported by the record. However, 

the supplemental final judgment lacks sufficient findings regarding 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 per 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 presented, and no 

findings were made, as to the Former Wife's recent work history, occupational 

qualifications, or the prevailing earnings level in the community, other than the fact that 

the Former Wife is a licensed massage therapist and had been employed 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-kind payments may be 

considered as part of a parent's gross income to the extent that they reduce living 
- 4 -

expenses. See § 61.30(2)(a)(13). However, the supplemental final judgment 

specifically states that the court 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 income to the 

Former Wife is not supported by sufficient findings of fact, nor 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 the 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 Nicholas v. Nicholas, 870 

So. 2d 245, 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). In all other aspects, we affirm. 

 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. 

SILBERMAN and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.