vanessa vasquez de lara, esq.
founder, owner & attorney
(1)(a) In a proceeding under this chapter, the court may at any time order either or both parents who owe a duty of support to a child to pay support to the other parent or, in the case of both parents, to a third party who has custody in accordance with the child support guidelines schedule in s. 61.30.
1. All child support orders and income deduction orders entered on or after October 1, 2010, must provide:
(b) Each order for support shall contain a provision for health insurance for the minor child when health insurance is reasonable in cost and accessible to the child. Health insurance is presumed to be reasonable in cost if the incremental cost of adding health insurance for the child or children does not exceed 5 percent of the gross income, as defined in s. 61.30, of the parent responsible for providing health insurance. Health insurance is accessible to the child if the health insurance is available to be used in the county of the child’s primary residence or in another county if the parent who has the most time under the time-sharing plan agrees. If the time-sharing plan provides for equal time-sharing, health insurance is accessible to the child if the health insurance is available to be used in either county where the child resides or in another county if both parents agree. The court may require the obligor to provide health insurance or to reimburse the obligee for the cost of health insurance for the minor child when insurance is provided by the obligee. The presumption of reasonable cost may be rebutted by evidence of any of the factors in s. 61.30(11)(a). The court may deviate from what is presumed reasonable in cost only upon a written finding explaining its determination why ordering or not ordering the provision of health insurance or the reimbursement of the obligee’s cost for providing health insurance for the minor child would be unjust or inappropriate. In any event, the court shall apportion the cost of health insurance, and any noncovered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses of the child, to both parties by adding the cost to the basic obligation determined pursuant to s. 61.30(6). The court may order that payment of noncovered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses of the minor child be made directly to the obligee on a percentage basis. In a proceeding for medical support only, each parent’s share of the child’s noncovered medical expenses shall equal the parent’s percentage share of the combined net income of the parents. The percentage share shall be calculated by dividing each parent’s net monthly income by the combined monthly net income of both parents. Net income is calculated as specified by s. 61.30(3) and (4).
1. In a non-Title IV-D case, a copy of the court order for health insurance shall be served on the obligor’s union or employer by the obligee when the following conditions are met:
5.a. The amount withheld by a union or employer in compliance with a support order may not exceed the amount allowed under s. 303(b) of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. s. 1673(b), as amended. The union or employer shall withhold the maximum allowed by the Consumer Credit Protection Act in the following order:
b. If the combined amount to be withheld for current support plus the premium payment for health insurance exceed the amount allowed under the Consumer Credit Protection Act, and the health insurance cannot be obtained unless the full amount of the premium is paid, the union or employer may not withhold the premium payment. However, the union or employer shall withhold the maximum allowed in the following order:
(c) The court shall determine all matters relating to parenting and time-sharing of each minor child of the parties in accordance with the best interests of the child and in accordance with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, except that modification of a parenting plan and time-sharing schedule requires a showing of a substantial, material, and unanticipated change of circumstances.
2. The court shall order that the parental responsibility for a minor child be shared by both parents unless the court finds that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child. Evidence that a parent has been convicted of a misdemeanor of the first degree or higher involving domestic violence, as defined in s. 741.28 and chapter 775, or meets the criteria of s. 39.806(1)(d), creates a rebuttable presumption of detriment to the child. If the presumption is not rebutted after the convicted parent is advised by the court that the presumption exists, shared parental responsibility, including time-sharing with the child, and decisions made regarding the child, may not be granted to the convicted parent. However, the convicted parent is not relieved of any obligation to provide financial support. If the court determines that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child, it may order sole parental responsibility and make such arrangements for time-sharing as specified in the parenting plan as will best protect the child or abused spouse from further harm. Whether or not there is a conviction of any offense of domestic violence or child abuse or the existence of an injunction for protection against domestic violence, the court shall consider evidence of domestic violence or child abuse as evidence of detriment to the child.
(3) For purposes of establishing or modifying parental responsibility and creating, developing, approving, or modifying a parenting plan, including a time-sharing schedule, which governs each parent’s relationship with his or her minor child and the relationship between each parent with regard to his or her minor child, the best interest of the child shall be the primary consideration. A determination of parental responsibility, a parenting plan, or a time-sharing schedule may not be modified without a showing of a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances and a determination that the modification is in the best interests of the child. Determination of the best interests of the child shall be made by evaluating all of the factors affecting the welfare and interests of the particular minor child and the circumstances of that family, including, but not limited to:
(c) When a parent refuses to honor the time-sharing schedule in the parenting plan without proper cause, the court:
I hired Vanessa to assist me with a modification to my existing parenting plan due to relocation. Vanessa and her team were efficient and quick. They helped me negotiate terms with my ex-husband and ultimately helped me be able to relocate out of state with my 2 boys while keeping a fair parenting plan. Everyone in the office was helpful and kind. I was able to amicably work out terms with my ex thanks to the guidance and care the office took with my case. I highly recommend Vanessa to anyone who needs a family attorney.
I’ve had the privilege of working with Vanessa before. She helped my daughter and me at a time when we most needed it. She made it possible for me to obtain full custody of my daughter and ensure her safety and well-being. I am forever grateful and indebted to her. If Vanessa needs anything I hope that she knows that I won’t hesitate to run to her aid, even after many years. If anyone needs a good and experienced family lawyer with a big heart, I have and will continue to refer them to Vanessa!
Not only is Vanessa extremely knowledgeable, but she truly does care, she is passionate about her work and that really shines through as she will always give 100% in everything she does. If you are looking for a lawyer, there is no better option than Vasquez de Lara Law Group
I had a phenomenal experience with this divorce law firm. The staff was very helpful and knowledgeable. Their level of professionalism is second to none. I would highly recommend them.
Vanessa de Lara is an outstanding family lawyer. I couldn’t have made a better choice, Vanessa does what she says she is going to do, when she says she’ll do it - her advice is firm, reasonable and fair. She is responsive to communications and a great listener." Thank you Vasquez de Lara Group for your advices.
Vanessa Vasquez is one of the best, most knowledgeable, and outstanding lawyers I have ever met. She is hard-working but most importantly, she is passionate about her work and her clients. She sees divorce as a last resource. I'd definitely recommend her as a family lawyer.
Handling your divorce case or custody dispute on your own is not easy without an attorney. It’s also not the best choice. Family court is very procedural. You may have all it takes to win your case, but just filing something wrong can cause huge delays and increase the chances that you lose in court. Review your case for free today.