DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

July Term 2014

JUSTIN EDWARD JOHNSON,

Appellant,

v.

SAMANTHA NICOLE MCCULLOUGH,

Appellee.

No. 4D13-3358

[August 6, 2014]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Krista Marx, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502012DR007344XXXXNB.

Justin Edward Johnson, West Palm Beach, pro se.

Samantha Nicole Gonzalez (McCullough), Reedsport, OR, pro se.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J.

Justin Edward Johnson (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s final order 

granting Samantha Nicole McCullough’s (“Mother”) petition to relocate 

with the parties’ minor children and recalculating child support. We affirm 

the trial court’s order as it pertains to relocation, but reverse the child 

support recalculation and remand for an evidentiary hearing. 

By way of background, the parties were never married, but had two 

children together (one born in 2005 and the other born in 2008) while 

living in West Virginia. The parties split up in 2009 and a West Virginia 

court entered an order naming Mother as the primary parent, granting 

Father visitation for one week a month plus summers, and requiring 

Father to pay $495.45 in child support a month. In 2010, both Mother 

and Father relocated to Florida but continued to abide by the West Virginia 

order. 

While living in Florida, Mother met and married a Coast Guard servicemember who was eventually transferred to a base in Oregon. Accordingly, 

Mother filed a Notice of Intent to Relocate in West Virginia, but the West 
2

Virginia court ruled that jurisdiction properly existed in a Florida court. 

Mother then filed a Verified Petition for Domestication and Enforcement of 

Foreign Order in Palm Beach County, requesting that the court 

domesticate and enforce the West Virginia court’s order. She also filed a 

Petition to Relocate with the children. Father objected to Mother’s Petition 

to Relocate, and, after a failed mediation, the parties proceeded to trial. 

At the trial, the parties presented evidence regarding the children’s 

current living situation and how relocation would affect them. After 

considering the evidence as applied to the statutory factors set forth in 

section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes (2012), the court provided a detailed 

ruling granting Mother’s petition for relocation. 

After the court issued its oral ruling on relocation, Father’s counsel 

raised the issue of child support, arguing that any costs incurred visiting 

the children should be deducted from his support obligations. The court 

then stated that “the child support guidelines have to be recalculated, 

anyway, as part of the judgment, so I’m going to ask that you do that.” A 

few days later, Mother filed a Child Support Guidelines Worksheet with 

the court. Father did not stipulate to Mother’s Worksheet and filed an 

amended financial affidavit reflecting different numbers than those used 

in Mother’s Worksheet. The court then entered a written order 

memorializing its relocation ruling and recalculating Father’s child 

support obligation at $499.14 per month, plus arrears. This number came 

straight from Mother’s Worksheet. Father now appeals both the trial 

court’s ruling on Mother’s motion for relocation and its child support 

calculation.

With respect to the relocation, we hold that the court’s determination 

was supported by substantial competent evidence, and affirm without 

further comment. See Botterbusch v. Botterbusch, 851 So. 2d 903, 904−05 

(Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (appellate courts do not engage in reweighing the 

evidence presented in conjunction with a petition for relocation, but rather 

look to see if there is substantial competent evidence supporting the 

court’s findings). However, the child support award was not supported by 

competent, substantial evidence and, therefore, we must reverse. 

In making an award of child support, the trial court is required to 

determine the net income of each parent pursuant to section 61.30, 

Florida Statutes, and to include such findings in the final judgment. See 

Deoca v. Deoca, 837 So. 2d 1137, 1138.39 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); see also § 

61.30(2) (includable income), (3) (allowable deductions), (4)−(5) 

(determination of net income), Fla. Stat. (2012). The court’s findings may 

be based solely on the parties’ child support guideline worksheet, but only 
3

if it is “offered into evidence pursuant to stipulation, and subject to a 

contemporaneous objection.” Reddick v. Reddick, 728 So. 2d 374, 375 

(Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

Here, the court’s child support findings were based exclusively on 

Mother’s Worksheet. However, the Worksheet was not admitted into 

evidence at the trial nor was it stipulated to by Father. Further, there is 

no other evidence in the record establishing the monthly net income 

attributed to Father in Mother’s Worksheet, and the Worksheet contradicts

the amounts listed in Father’s financial affidavit. Accordingly, we reverse 

and remand for a new hearing limited to the recalculation of child support. 

Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded.

FORST, J., and HANZMAN, MICHAEL, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.