Case Name: DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, v. Dagmara DARIAS and Reinaldo Rodriguez, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2016-01-06
Citations: 181 So. 3d 576
Docket Number: No. 1D15-713
Parties: DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, v. Dagmara DARIAS and Reinaldo Rodriguez, Appellees.
Judges: WETHERELL, ROWE, and RAY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 181
Pages: 576–576

Head Matter:
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, v. Dagmara DARIAS and Reinaldo Rodriguez, Appellees.
No. 1D15-713.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Jan. 6, 2016.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
No Appearance for Appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The Florida Department of Revenue raises two issues in this appeal of a Final Administrative Paternity and Support Order determining the child; support obligation of Appellee Reinaldo Rodriguez (the father). In the first issue, the Department argues'that the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred by concluding that he lacked authority to enter a support order exceeding the amounts set forth in the Department's Proposed Final Administrative Paternity and Support Order based on new information developed at an evidentiary hearing that would increase the father's child support obligation under the statutory child support guidelines. In the second issue, the Department argues that the Final Administrative Paternity and Support Order is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. , Consistent with our opinion in Department of Revenue v. Reyes, No. 1D15-707, 2015 WL 9584862 (Fla. 1st DCA December 31, 2015), we resolve both issues by concluding that the ALJ was required to establish the father's child support obligation based on the evidence presented at the hearing. By limiting the fathers child, support .obligation to the amounts contained in the proposed order, notwithstanding the evidence presented, the Final Administrative Paternity and Support Order is contrary to Florida law and not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Accordingly, we vacate the order and remand for further proceedings.-
WETHERELL, ROWE, and RAY, JJ., concur.