Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

H was ordered would pay $550 per month in child support and 100% of the child's medical expenses not covered by insurance. In February 1995, H petitioned for modification of child support alleging that there had been a substantial change in his financial circumstances warranting a downward modification of his child support obligation. The specific allegations included: (a) his income had decreased permanently, involuntarily and substantially, (b) the former W's income had increased, (c) he had remarried and has three children from the subsequent marriage, (d) W had remarried, and (e) it appeared the child support guidelines would provide for a decrease of $ 50 per month or 15% of the current amount. A Florida statute provides that subsequent children could be considered where a party sought an increase in child support but not a reduction. The trial court found that no substantial change in circumstances occurred that would warrant a downward modification in child support. H appealed arguing that the statute unconstitutional.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.