Case Name: Dartha Killingsworth THOMPSON, Appellant, v. George Allen THOMPSON, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-07-22
Citations: 402 So. 2d 1220
Docket Number: No. 80-1225
Parties: Dartha Killingsworth THOMPSON, Appellant, v. George Allen THOMPSON, Appellee.
Judges: FRANK D. UPCHURCH, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 402
Pages: 1220–1222

Head Matter:
Dartha Killingsworth THOMPSON, Appellant, v. George Allen THOMPSON, Appellee.
No. 80-1225.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
July 22, 1981.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 2, 1981.
Bruce S. Kaufman, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Henry P. Duffett of Duffett, Seps & Ak-ers, Ormond Beach; and Berrien Becks, Jr., of Becks, Becks & Wickersham, Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
COWART, Judge.
We uphold the trial judge's finding that it was in the best interest of the child to award custody of the 15 year old son to the father although this decision split the custody of the parties' two children.
We sustain the award of $65 per week for child support for the 11 year old daughter in the wife's custody on the basis that the father must also provide full medi cal and dental care and in view of the father's loss of income resulting from a disabling medical problem from which he is recovering. Of course, an increase in the father's earnings above that upon which the final judgment was based will warrant an increase in child support. A parent's income is the most dominant and directly related factor to be considered in determining the amount of the financial duty to support a child in the custody of another. We suggest that a 10 percent change, up or down, in an obligor's disposable income, could constitute a substantial change in circumstances justifying an adjustment of such support.
Florida law does not yet require that all of the wealth and property acquired during the marriage, i. e., "marital property," be equally divided between the parties. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1204 (Fla.1980). Therefore we affirm the trial court's equitable distribution of the marital property.
Considering the husband's depressed financial condition, the length of the marriage, the age, education, conduct and substantial assets of the wife, the trial judge did not abuse his considerable discretion in awarding lump sum alimony payable periodically. § 61.08, Fla.Stat. (1979); Canakaris v. Canakaris; McAllister v. McAllister, 345 So.2d 352, 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. denied, 357 So.2d 186 (Fla.1978); Oliver v. Oliver, 285 So.2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).
The final judgment is
AFFIRMED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, J., concurs.
SHARP, J., dissents with opinion.