Case Name: Louis George CARRES, Appellant, v. Margaret GOOD-EARNEST, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2002-11-20
Citations: 838 So. 2d 577
Docket Number: No. 4D01-4951
Parties: Louis George CARRES, Appellant, v. Margaret GOOD-EARNEST, Appellee.
Judges: WARNER, STEVENSON and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 838
Pages: 577–578

Head Matter:
Louis George CARRES, Appellant, v. Margaret GOOD-EARNEST, Appellee.
No. 4D01-4951.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Nov. 20, 2002.
Order Granting Rehearing March 5, 2003.
Louis G. Carres, West Palm Beach, pro se.
Helene Hvizd Morris, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Pro se appellant, Louis Jorge Car-res, the former husband, timely appeals the order of the circuit court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, modifying the final judgment of dissolution, awarding child support, attorney's fees and custody of the parties' child to appellee, Margaret Good-Earnest. We have carefully examined the issues raised on appeal and find no error. In particular, we note that both the petition for modification and the trial court's order adequately state substantial changed circumstances which are involuntary and permanent warranting child support beyond age eighteen. See § 748.07(2), Fla. Stat. (2000); Kern v. Kern, 360 So.2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)(stating that although the legal duty of a parent to support a child generally ceases at the age of majority, there is a continuing duty on a parent to care for an adult child suffering from physical or mental disabilities); see also Miller v. Smart, 636 So.2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)(explain-ing that a child's support payments may be extended beyond age eighteen where the child is dependent due to mental or physical incapacity that began prior to age eighteen).
The husband also attempts to challenge that portion of the trial court's order which determined former wife's entitlement to attorney's fees. This court has declined to exercise jurisdiction over orders such as this one, which determine entitlement to attorney's fees, but not amount. See Rit-chie v. Ritchie, 687 So.2d 1358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Carlson v. Carlson, 696 So.2d 1332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Accordingly, we dismiss that portion of the appeal directed to entitlement.
AFFIRMED in part, DISMISSED in part.
WARNER, STEVENSON and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
. Appellant has not provided a transcript of the hearing below. Thus, our review is limited to any error of law that is apparent on the face of the judgment. See Sullivan v. Sullivan, 668 So.2d 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Bartolottav. Bartolotta, 687 So.2d 1385, 1386 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 697 So.2d 509 (Fla. 1997).