Case Name: STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, et al., Appellants, v. Robert ALONSO, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-11-23
Citations: 626 So. 2d 1106
Docket Number: No. 93-1185
Parties: STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, et al., Appellants, v. Robert ALONSO, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and GODERICH, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 626
Pages: 1106–1106

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, et al., Appellants, v. Robert ALONSO, Appellee.
No. 93-1185.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 23, 1993.
Diane H. Tutt, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
William A. Ingraham, Jr., Miami, for ap-pellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and GODERICH, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The downward modification of the father's child support obligation is reversed because there was no showing of any change in the pertinent circumstances. Landa v. Massie, 593 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), review denied, 602 So.2d 942 (Fla.1992). No abuse of discretion has been demonstrated in the determination of the amount the appellee is required to pay toward his support arrearag-es. See Ashe v. Ashe, 509 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So.2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
. Our disposition makes it unnecessaiy for us directly to treat the appellants' contention that the finding that the father's not extraordinary living expenses made it a hardship to pay the support fixed by the guidelines is insufficient to justify a departure. We note, however, that there is great force in this contention. See §61.-30(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1991); Riley v. Parker, 624 So.2d 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).