IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

PAULINE MARTINA KEOGH,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D18-1080

ROBERT STEPHEN KEOGH,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed August 31, 2018

Non-Final Appeal from the Circuit 

Court for Brevard County,

George Paulk, Judge.

Mark M. O'Mara and Carina M. Leeson, of 

O'Mara Law Group, Orlando, for Appellant.

Clay D. Morgan, of Morgan & Barbary, P.A., 

Melbourne, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Pauline Keogh (“Wife”) appeals the non-final order dismissing her claim for child 

support. We have jurisdiction,

1 and we reverse because the trial court erred in concluding 

that it did not have jurisdiction to award child support.

The parties were married in Florida in November 2006 and have one minor child 

born to their marriage. The parties separated, and the minor child now lives with Wife in 

Ireland. In June 2017, Robert Keogh (“Husband”) filed his petition for dissolution of 

 1 See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)a.
2

marriage. Pertinent to this appeal, Husband alleged that under Florida’s Uniform Child 

Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”),2 the trial court did not have 

jurisdiction over the parties’ minor child. Wife answered the petition and later filed an 

amended counterpetition for dissolution of marriage in which she requested, among other 

things, temporary and permanent child support for their minor child and for Husband to 

maintain a policy of medical insurance to provide for the health care needs of the child 

and contribute to the child’s uncovered health related costs. Wife did not plead for the 

court to make a child custody determination.

Husband moved to dismiss Wife’s claim for child support, asserting that because 

Wife and the minor child have lived continuously in Ireland for over two years, Florida is 

not the child’s “home state” under the UCCJEA and, thus, the court had no jurisdiction to 

grant any relief related to the minor child. The trial court agreed, finding that the 

undisputed facts showed that Florida was not the child’s home state prior to the 

commencement of this action and because the court does not have jurisdiction over child 

custody issues, it also lacked jurisdiction to award child support, “either under the 

UCCJEA or Florida Statute section 61.13.”

Whether the court has jurisdiction in this case is a question of law that is reviewed 

de novo. Nissen v. Cortez Moreno, 10 So. 3d 1110, 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (citing 

Sanchez v. Fernandez, 915 So. 2d 192, 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)). We hold that the plain 

language of section 61.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2017), provides the trial court with 

jurisdiction in this case to award child support. 

 2 Codified at sections 61.501-61.542, Florida Statutes (2017).
3

We first address the trial court’s reasoning that it lacked jurisdiction to award child 

support under the UCCJEA. The UCCJEA is a jurisdictional act that controls custody 

disputes. In re D.N.H.W., 955 So. 2d 1236, 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (quoting Arjona v. 

Torres, 941 So. 2d 451, 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)). Here, there is no request for a child 

custody determination in the pleadings as Florida, admittedly, is not the home state of the 

child. The term “child custody determination” under the UCCJEA specifically excludes an 

order relating to child support or other monetary obligation of an individual. See § 

61.503(3), Fla. Stat. (2017). This Act applies only to the issue of custody. Patterson v. 

Tomlinson, 875 So. 2d 646, 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

Next, we hold that the court erred in finding that it had no jurisdiction under section 

61.13, Florida Statutes (2017), to order child support. Section 61.13(1)(a) provides, in

pertinent part, that “[i]n a proceeding under this chapter, the court may at any time order 

either or both parents who owe a duty of support to a child to pay support to the other 

parent.” The parties’ dissolution of marriage litigation pending below is a proceeding 

under chapter 61, and Husband owes a duty to support his minor child. As there is no 

dispute here that the court has personal jurisdiction over the parties, this statute gives the 

court jurisdiction to order Husband, as the child’s parent, to pay child support. The fact 

that a custody proceeding may, at some point, be instituted in Ireland does not preclude 

a Florida court from presently exercising its authorized jurisdiction to award child support. 

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order dismissing Wife’s child support claim 

for lack of jurisdiction and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

COHEN, C.J., BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.