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.

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

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

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

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