Case Name: In the Interest of D.F.W. Jr. DEPARTMENT OF H.R.S., Appellant, v. Devel F. WESLEY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-11-13
Citations: 497 So. 2d 925
Docket Number: No. 86-34
Parties: In the Interest of D.F.W. Jr. DEPARTMENT OF H.R.S., Appellant, v. Devel F. WESLEY, Appellee.
Judges: COBB, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 497
Pages: 925–927

Head Matter:
In the Interest of D.F.W. Jr. DEPARTMENT OF H.R.S., Appellant, v. Devel F. WESLEY, Appellee.
No. 86-34.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Nov. 13, 1986.
Charles L. Carlton of Carlton & Carlton, P.A., Lakeland, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.

Opinion:
COWART, Judge.
Appellee was adjudicated to be the father of a dependent child and ordered to pay $50 per month child support. Because the child's mother was receiving public assistance benefits, appellant H.R.S. was entitled to collect and receive the support payments under section 409.2561, Florida Statutes. Alleging that the father was in arrears in payment of child support, H.R.S. moved the court to enforce the support obligation by contempt proceedings. After hearing, the trial court found an arrearage of $982.50 and also found that the father had the ability to pay. However, at the hearing the defendant complained to the judge that he had not paid child support because the child's mother had refused or frustrated his attempts to visit the child and for that reason the court ordered "that the defendant is not found to be in contempt and his obligation to pay support is terminated or suspended indefinitely." H.R.S. appeals.
The trial court also expressly found that "no order of visitation has been entered nor has a request for visitation been made by the defendant." The father's duty to pay child support and his right to visit his child should not be confused or commingled. If the father desires visitation he should petition the court to adjudicate his right to visitation and have that matter heard after due notice. If the court establishes a right of visitation it should specify the times, places, and circumstances of such visitation. Then if the child's mother interferes with that visitation, it should be specifically enforced against her by utilization of the contempt power of the court. The right of the child, or H.R.S., to receive child support from the father should not be barred because of the mother's actions nor should those rights be compromised or bargained away in exchange for the father's visitation rights. The child is entitled to be visited by its father, and it and H.R.S. also have the right to receive child support from the father.
The trial court cannot modify a support order or other adjudicated right unless the court's subject matter jurisdiction has been properly invoked by appropriate pleadings, and that invoked jurisdiction has been perfected by the proper service of process and due process notice and an opportunity to be heard on that issue has been had. None of this was done here. See Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So.2d 334 (Fla.1957); Manning v. Varges, 413 So.2d 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
The language quoted above declining to find the defendant in contempt and attempting to terminate or suspend his obligation to pay child support is vacated and set aside and the cause is remanded with directions to the trial court to enforce ap-pellee's duty of support pursuant to general law and section 409.2561, Florida Statutes.
ORDER MODIFIED; CAUSE REMANDED.
COBB, J., concurs.
SHARP, J., concurs specially with opinion.
. See Robinson v. HRS, 473 So.2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).