Can a traditional yearly gift from grandparents be used in calculating child support?

In the case of Palumbo v. Butler, 26 So.3d 723 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2010), the appellate court ruled that is was :

ERROR TO INCLUDE IN HUSBAND'S INCOME FOR PURPOSE OF CALCULATING CHILD SUPPORT, ANTICIPATED ANNUAL FINANCIAL GIFTS WHICH HUSBAND'S MOTHER HAD HISTORICALLY MADE TO MINOR CHILDREN FOR THEIR EDUCATION. 

The trial judge added $22,000 per year to the husband's income to calculate his child support obligation. The court reasoned that these gifts were regular and would continue. The District Court reversed: 

1. "[The husband]…does not control his mother's largesse. His mother testified that she anticipated making future gifts, depending on the economy, her health, and her family needs."

2. "In past years, she gave the children's money directly to [the husband], earmarking it for school tuition. But, well before the final hearing, she began paying the school directly."

3. "On the record before us, [the wife] properly concedes that the anticipated gifts should not have been included with Mr. Butler's income." 

            The reasoning for this is that grandparents can change their mind at any time regarding their gifts.  They could have a financial emergency, medical emergency, or simply decide to spend some of their own money.  The parent paying child support would be caught in a "trap" requiring him to pay support from income he doesn't receive.  Hopefully, grandparents will help pay for schooling, but that is a personal choice that the courts can't get involved it.  If every case was micromanaged, the courts could not function in a efficient manner.

When the parents live in different states, who pays for the kid's travel?

In the case of Hindle v. Fuith, 33 So.3d 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)  the court ruled:

TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING FATHER TO BEAR THE ENTIRE COST OF VISITATION; TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES SHOULD BE SHARED BY PARENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH FINANCIAL MEANS; EXPENSE OF VISITATION IS A CHILD-REARING EXPENSE "LIKE ANY OTHER." 

The Father appealed from a final judgment of paternity which determined that the Florida courts had subject matter jurisdiction over the parties' custody dispute concerning the parties' eight-year-old daughter; granted custody of the child to the mother, ordered monthly child support; and placed the burden of visitation costs entirely on the father. With regard to the court's requirement that the Father bear all of the costs of visitation, the District Court held:

1. "The [parties'] child was born in the United Kingdom where the father resides and removed to Florida by the mother's unilateral decision. The trial court ruled that the father can only visit the child in Florida, thereby incurring substantial travel expenses to effectuate his visitation."

2. "The expense of visiting the child in Florida from the father's residence in the United Kingdom is a childrearing expense like any other. Child support guidelines provide that transportation expenses, like other childrearing costs, should be shared by the parents in accordance with their financial means.

What this case means is that when there are substantial travel expenses, each parent should share the cost of travel.  This is calculated on the child support guidelines and based on the income of each parent.  Both parents should be in a child's life and the court has recognized this.

Does my ex have to pay for private school for the kids?

The court ruled in Gelman v. Gelman, 24 So.3d 1281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) that it was :

ERROR TO REQUIRE HUSBAND TO PAY CHILDREN'S PRIVATE SCHOOL TUITION WHERE WIFE'S COUNTER-PETITION DID NOT CONTAIN REQUEST FOR TUITION, HUSBAND DID NOT AGREE TO PAY AND COURT DID NOT MAKE FINDINGS AS TO ABILITY TO PAY AND WHETHER SUCH EXPENSES WERE IN ACCORD WITH CUSTOMARY STANDARD OF LIVING AND IN THE CHILDREN'S BEST INTERESTS. 

The trial court directed the Former Husband to pay the minor children's private school tuition. The District Court reversed: 

1. "A court may order a non-custodial parent to pay for private educational expenses if it finds that the parent has the ability to pay for private school and the expenses are in accordance with the family's customary standard of living and are in the child's best interest."

2. "Former Husband contends that the trial court improperly ordered him to pay the children's private school tuition because Former Wife did not plead for the award and the trial court failed to make requisite findings of fact…."

3. "Former Wife's counter-petition did not contain a request for payment of private school tuition. Moreover, there is no record evidence establishing that Former Husband agreed to pay the tuition. Finally, the court did not make the requisite findings as to whether Former Husband has the ability to pay the tuition, and whether the private school expenses are in accordance with the family's customary standard of living and are in the children's best interest."