Case Name: C. Leonard SIMPSON, Appellant, v. Eloise R. SIMPSON, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-10-09
Citations: 680 So. 2d 1085
Docket Number: No. 95-2386
Parties: C. Leonard SIMPSON, Appellant, v. Eloise R. SIMPSON, Appellee.
Judges: GUNTHER, C.J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 680
Pages: 1085–1088

Head Matter:
C. Leonard SIMPSON, Appellant, v. Eloise R. SIMPSON, Appellee.
No. 95-2386.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Oct. 9, 1996.
Charles E. Steinberg of the Law Offices of Charles E. Steinberg, P.A., Stuart, for appellant.
Bruce C. Baillie, Stuart, for appellee.

Opinion:
FARMER, Judge.
In reviewing this final judgment of dissolution, we affirm both the provision requiring the father to pay $788 per month in child support for those children residing with the mother, and the corresponding provision requiring the mother to pay $339 per month in child support for the child residing with the father.
We conclude that the child support guidelines do not speak to the circumstance in which 3 children are split between their parents, who have nearly comparable in comes. If the guidelines do not cover this circumstance, as both parties and the dissent seem to agree, we think it impossible to contend that there has been an unwarranted deviation from them. See § 61.30, Fla. Stat. (1995). A trial judge cannot logically be accused of deviating from a standard that by its own terms does not purport to apply to the facts. We thus recur to the rule of discretion that governs dissolution of marriage cases. See, Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). Applying that rule, we cannot say on the evidence adduced that the trial judge's resolution of this issue is arbitrary and unfair.
The exact method suggested in the dissent was. not raised or argued by the parties, although it is similar to the one argued by appellant. It was thus never considered by the trial judge. We do not believe, moreover, that it is necessarily required by anything contained in section 61.30.
On the other hand, if the trial judge had employed the dissent's suggested method, we would not find its usage an abuse of discretion. A trial judge would certainly be free to apply the suggested method when the judge finds the circumstances appropriate to do so. Unless it is adopted by the legislature as part of section 61.30, however, we are unable to agree with the dissent that it is the exclusive method available to the judge- who is faced with separating the custody of 3 children between 2 parents with roughly equivalent income.
We do reverse that portion of the order providing that the child support paid by the father shall continue until the youngest child reaches 18 years of age. We direct the trial judge on remand to adjust his obligation as each child reaches 18. In all other respects we affirm.
GUNTHER, C.J., concurs.
WARNER, J., dissents with opinion.
. Both are accountants practicing as CPAs. Her net monthly income is $2568 and his is $2012. She bears the cost of health insurance and part of the child care costs.