26 Mar Retroactive Child Support in Florida Family Court
Summary
Florida courts may award retroactive child support in an initial determination for up to 24 months before the petition is filed, with credits required for all actual payments made during that period. In modification proceedings, retroactivity is generally limited to the filing date of the supplemental petition, unless the noncustodial parent failed to regularly exercise time-sharing.
Retroactive child support in Florida is one of the most consequential and frequently litigated financial issues that arises in Miami-Dade County family law proceedings. Whether a case involves a dissolution of marriage, a paternity action, or a supplemental petition to modify an existing child support order, the question of how far back a court may reach when establishing or adjusting a support obligation can have enormous financial implications for both parents. Understanding the statutory framework, the applicable case law, and the strategic considerations that govern retroactive child support awards is essential for any parent navigating family court in Miami or elsewhere in South Florida.
Under Florida law, retroactive child support is not automatically awarded in every case. Instead, courts exercise discretion within clearly defined statutory boundaries that differ depending on whether the proceeding is an initial determination or a modification. Florida Statute Section 61.30 sets the foundational rules for initial determinations, while Section 61.14 governs modifications. The interplay between these two statutes, and the body of appellate case law interpreting them, creates a nuanced legal landscape that parents, attorneys, and judges must navigate carefully.
This article provides an analysis of retroactive child support in Florida, including the statutory authority, the 24-month cap applicable in initial proceedings, the computation methodology, the treatment of credits for payments made during the retroactive period, the rules governing retroactivity in modification proceedings, and the statutory exception that arises when a noncustodial parent fails to regularly exercise court-ordered time-sharing. Throughout this discussion, references to relevant Florida statutes and appellate decisions from the Florida District Courts of Appeal will provide the primary authority supporting each legal principle discussed.
The Legal Framework: Florida Statute Section 61.30 and Retroactive Child Support
Florida Statute Section 61.30 is the cornerstone of child support law in Florida. It establishes the income shares model that Florida courts use to calculate child support obligations and, critically for purposes of this discussion, it also authorizes courts to award retroactive child support in initial proceedings. The statute provides that in an initial determination of child support, the court has discretion to award child support retroactive to the date when the parents did not reside together in the same household with the child, subject to a hard cap of 24 months preceding the filing of the petition. See Fla. Stat. Section 61.30.
This 24-month limitation is not a guideline or a presumption. It is a firm statutory ceiling. Even where the parents separated many years before a petition was filed, and even where one parent bore all of the financial responsibility for the child during that entire period without any contribution from the other, the court simply may not reach back further than 24 months before the date the petition was filed. The Florida appellate courts have consistently recognized this boundary. See Williams v. Gonzalez, 294 So. 3d 941 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020) (confirming that in an initial determination of child support the court has discretion to award child support retroactive not to exceed a period of 24 months preceding the filing of the petition).
The date from which the retroactive period is measured is equally important. The statute ties the starting point to when the parents ceased to reside together in the same household with the child. This means that if parents were cohabiting after the child’s birth and then separated, the retroactive period begins running from the date of that separation, not from the child’s date of birth. Consequently, the retroactive exposure in any given case depends on both when the parents stopped living together and when the petition was actually filed, with the 24-month ceiling serving as the outer limit regardless of how long the parents have been separated.
From a practical standpoint in Miami-Dade County family court proceedings, this statutory framework makes the filing date strategically significant. A custodial parent who delays filing a petition for child support loses the ability to recover retroactive support for the period of delay that falls outside the 24-month window. Conversely, a parent facing a retroactive claim benefits from any delay in filing because the window of retroactive exposure shrinks accordingly. Miami family law attorneys therefore advise clients to file petitions promptly once the parents are living separately, in order to preserve the full retroactive period authorized by Florida Statute Section 61.30.
Computing Retroactive Child Support: Income, Guidelines, and Proof
Once a Florida court determines that retroactive child support is appropriate, the next question is how to calculate the amount owed. Florida Statute Section 61.30 provides specific guidance on this point and establishes a framework that balances the use of current guideline calculations with the practical reality that income levels may have differed during the retroactive period. Understanding this computation methodology is essential for accurately evaluating retroactive child support exposure and for presenting or defending against retroactive claims in Miami family court.
The statute directs the court to apply the guidelines schedule in effect at the time of the hearing when computing retroactive child support. This means that the court does not necessarily apply historical guideline schedules that may have been in place during the retroactive period. Instead, the applicable schedule is the one that governs at the time the case is being heard. See Fla. Stat. Section 61.30. The use of the current guidelines schedule introduces an important variable: if the obligor’s income was different during the retroactive period than it is at the time of the hearing, the application of current-schedule calculations to retroactive periods may produce results that do not accurately reflect what the obligor could have afforded to pay at the relevant time.
Florida law addresses this concern by giving the obligor an opportunity to demonstrate actual income during the retroactive period. According to Florida Statute Section 61.30, the guidelines schedule is applied subject to the obligor’s demonstration of his or her actual income during the retroactive period. If the obligor successfully demonstrates lower historical income, the court is permitted to use that demonstrated income as the basis for computing retroactive support rather than defaulting to the obligor’s current income level. This provision recognizes the fundamental fairness concern of not saddling a parent with a retroactive obligation calculated on income he or she never actually earned.
The consequences of failing to demonstrate actual historical income are significant. Florida Statute Section 61.30 provides that failure of the obligor to so demonstrate shall result in the court using the obligor’s income at the time of the hearing in computing child support for the retroactive period. In practical terms, this means that an obligor who does not produce adequate financial documentation for the retroactive period, such as tax returns, pay stubs, bank statements, or financial affidavits reflecting historical income, risks having the entire retroactive calculation performed using current income, which may be substantially higher than what the obligor actually earned during the relevant years. Litigants in Miami-Dade County family court proceedings should therefore be prepared to gather and present historical financial records early in any case where retroactive child support is at issue.
The statutory framework for computing retroactive child support thus creates an asymmetry in the burden of proof. The obligee parent does not need to establish what the obligor historically earned; the court will use current income by default. It is the obligor who bears the burden of coming forward with evidence of historical income if a lower figure is claimed. This allocation of the burden of proof reflects a policy judgment that, in the absence of contrary proof, courts will apply the income level that can be verified at the time of the hearing. Practitioners in South Florida family law courts should structure their discovery and financial disclosure processes with this burden allocation clearly in mind.
Credits Against Retroactive Child Support: Payments Made During the Retroactive Period
The Statutory Requirement to Consider Actual Payments
A critically important component of the retroactive child support analysis under Florida law is the treatment of payments that a parent actually made during the retroactive period. Florida Statute Section 61.30 expressly requires courts to consider all actual payments made by a parent to the other parent, to the child, or to third parties for the benefit of the child throughout the proposed retroactive period. This statutory directive reflects the fundamental fairness principle that a parent should not be required to pay twice for the same period of a child’s support.
The requirement to consider all actual payments is not merely permissive. The statute uses mandatory language, and Florida appellate decisions have reinforced that compliance with this requirement is not discretionary. See Appellant v. Warner, 422 So. 3d 1194 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2025) (noting that when determining the retroactive award, section 61.30(17)(b) requires the court to consider all actual payments made by a parent to the other parent or the child or third parties for the benefit of the child throughout the proposed retroactive period). The breadth of this requirement is notable: it encompasses not only direct payments to the other parent but also payments made directly for the child’s benefit to schools, healthcare providers, landlords, grocers, and any other third parties who provided goods or services for the child.
For parents litigating retroactive child support claims in Miami-Dade County, the practical implication is that documentary evidence of every payment made for the child’s benefit during the retroactive period should be gathered, organized, and presented to the court. Credit card statements, bank records, receipts, wire transfer confirmations, and similar documentation are essential to establishing the credit to which an obligor parent may be entitled. A failure to document these payments can result in the court overlooking expenditures that the obligor parent made on behalf of the child during the relevant period.
Entitlement to Credit Under Williams v. Gonzalez
The Florida District Court of Appeal in Williams v. Gonzalez, 294 So. 3d 941 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020), confirmed that the obligor parent is entitled to credit for any payments that would qualify under Florida Statute Section 61.30(17)(b) that occurred during the retroactive support period. This appellate authority establishes credit as a matter of entitlement, not a matter of discretion, once qualifying payments are established. The practical significance of this holding is that courts are not free to ignore or minimize documented payments made during the retroactive period simply because they were not made pursuant to a formal court order.
The Florida appellate framework thus draws a meaningful distinction between credits in an initial retroactive award and credits claimed against arrears that have already accrued under a pre-existing court order. In the initial determination context, the statute’s express mandate to consider all actual payments operates as a mechanism for calculating the true net retroactive obligation rather than a gross figure untethered from the financial reality of the retroactive period. Attorneys practicing family law in Miami and South Florida should ensure that retroactive support calculations presented to the court account for this credit mechanism.
The Voluntary Payment Rule and Its Interaction with the Retroactive Credit Analysis
A separate but related body of Florida case law addresses the treatment of voluntary payments made outside of a court order. Under the general rule articulated in Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 994 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008), payments made by a party voluntarily and not pursuant to a court order are generally not credited against child support arrearages absent a showing of compelling equitable circumstances. At first glance, this rule might appear to conflict with the statutory mandate to consider all actual payments made during the retroactive period.
However, these two legal principles operate in different contexts. The voluntary payment rule from Rodriguez v. Rodriguez primarily addresses situations where a support obligation has already been established by court order and the obligor seeks to offset accrued arrears by pointing to voluntary expenditures made outside the order’s framework. In contrast, the statutory credit mechanism under Florida Statute Section 61.30(17)(b) applies in the context of computing an initial retroactive award, where no prior court order existed during the retroactive period. Because no court order governed the parties’ conduct during an initial retroactive period, the retroactive award is being established for the first time, and the statute’s instruction to consider all actual payments for the child’s benefit applies directly to ensure an accurate and fair net award.
The distinction matters considerably in Miami-Dade County family court practice. A parent who made substantial informal financial contributions to a child’s support during a period before any court order was entered stands in a meaningfully different legal position than a parent who seeks to offset arrears accumulated under an existing order by claiming credit for voluntary expenditures made outside that order’s terms. Florida Statute Section 61.30 and the appellate authority interpreting it provide clear support for crediting the former category of payments in the initial retroactive determination context.
Retroactive Child Support in Modification Proceedings: A Different Legal Standard
The Filing Date as the Hard Retroactivity Boundary in Modifications
Florida law draws a sharp and consequential distinction between retroactivity in initial child support determinations and retroactivity in proceedings to modify an existing child support order. While the initial determination framework under Florida Statute Section 61.30 allows the court to reach back up to 24 months before the petition was filed, the modification framework under Florida Statute Section 61.14 imposes a categorically different rule: retroactive modification of a child support obligation may not be imposed prior to the date the petition seeking modification was filed.
The Florida appellate courts have consistently enforced this boundary. In Carmack v. Carmack, 316 So. 3d 396 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021), the court confirmed that a retroactive child support obligation may not be imposed prior to the date the petition seeking modification was filed, and that Florida Statute Section 61.14(1)(a) allows modification retroactive only to the date of the filing of the action or supplemental action for modification. This rule reflects the principle that once a court order governing support is in place, parties are entitled to rely on that order until it is lawfully modified, and a court order modifying support should not reach back beyond the date that the party seeking modification initiated the formal court process.
The practical consequence of this rule for Miami-Dade County family law litigants is straightforward but often underappreciated: a parent who knows that circumstances have changed in a way that warrants a modification of child support but delays filing a supplemental petition loses the opportunity to recover the difference for the period of delay. If, for example, a parent’s income increases substantially in January but a supplemental petition is not filed until December of the same year, the modifying court cannot award additional support retroactive to January. The modification can only be made retroactive to the December filing date. This makes prompt filing of modification petitions a strategic imperative.
Consistent with Carmack v. Carmack, the Florida appellate courts have also recognized the general principle that modifications are typically retroactive to the date of the supplemental petition. See Coriat v. Coriat, 306 So. 3d 356 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020) (modifications are generally retroactive to the date of the supplemental petition). Together, these authorities establish a clear rule: in modification proceedings, the filing date is the anchor for retroactivity, and courts do not have the discretion to reach further back in time, subject to the specific statutory exception discussed in the next section of this article.
Why the Modification Rule Differs from the Initial Determination Rule
The rationale for treating modification proceedings differently from initial determinations rests on sound policy foundations. In an initial child support determination, there is no existing court order establishing what either parent owes. The court is effectively looking backward to determine what should have been paid during a period when the obligor had a natural obligation to support the child but no formal court order compelled any specific amount. The 24-month retroactive window under Florida Statute Section 61.30 reflects a legislative judgment that some retroactive accountability is appropriate and fair in this context, while also setting a practical limit to prevent indefinite retroactive exposure.
In the modification context, by contrast, an existing court order is already in place. That order remains legally binding until a court formally modifies it. A party who believes the existing order is no longer appropriate has both the right and the practical obligation to file a modification petition promptly. Allowing retroactive modification prior to the filing date would, in effect, reward delay and undermine the finality and enforceability of existing court orders. The filing date rule thus serves the dual purpose of incentivizing prompt legal action and preserving the integrity of existing court orders.
The Time-Sharing Noncompliance Exception: A Statutory Modification Retroactivity Exception
Failure to Exercise Time-Sharing as a Substantial Change of Circumstances
Florida law recognizes one significant statutory exception to the general rule that retroactive modification of child support may not extend beyond the filing date of the modification petition. This exception arises when a noncustodial parent fails to regularly exercise the court-ordered or agreed time-sharing schedule. Under Florida Statute Section 61.30, a parent’s failure to regularly exercise the time-sharing schedule shall be deemed a substantial change of circumstances for purposes of modifying the child support award, provided that the failure was not caused by the other parent’s conduct.
The basis for treating time-sharing noncompliance as a substantial change of circumstances lies in the structure of Florida’s income shares model for calculating child support. Under that model, the number of overnights that the child spends with each parent is a significant input in the guideline calculation. When the parenting plan or settlement agreement allocates a certain number of overnights to each parent, the corresponding child support obligation is calculated in part based on that allocation. When a noncustodial parent consistently fails to exercise the allocated time-sharing, the financial and logistical burden on the custodial parent increases because that parent is bearing primary responsibility for the child during periods when the noncustodial parent was supposed to provide care. Florida law recognizes this imbalance as a basis for adjusting the support obligation.
Retroactivity Tied to the First Instance of Noncompliance
What makes the time-sharing exception particularly notable from a retroactivity standpoint is the date to which modification may reach back. Unlike the general modification rule that limits retroactivity to the filing date of the supplemental petition, Florida Statute Section 61.30 provides that a modification pursuant to this paragraph is retroactive to the date the noncustodial parent first failed to regularly exercise the court-ordered or agreed time-sharing schedule. This means the retroactive reach of the modification is not anchored to when the petition was filed, but rather to when the noncompliance began.
Florida appellate courts have recognized this provision as a genuine exception to the general modification retroactivity rule. See Coriat v. Coriat, 306 So. 3d 356 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020) (recognizing that the time-sharing failure exception operates as an exception to the general principle that modifications are retroactive to the date of the supplemental petition). The practical effect can be substantial: if a noncustodial parent began failing to exercise time-sharing six months or a year before the custodial parent filed a supplemental petition, the modification may reach back to that earlier date of noncompliance, potentially resulting in a significantly larger retroactive obligation than would otherwise be available under the general filing date rule.
From a litigation perspective in Miami-Dade County family court, the time-sharing exception creates important evidentiary considerations. The custodial parent seeking to invoke the exception must be able to establish when the noncustodial parent first failed to regularly exercise time-sharing. This requires contemporaneous documentation, such as records of missed exchanges, communications through co-parenting apps or text messages, school or daycare records reflecting pickup and drop-off patterns, and any other evidence that can establish the timeline of noncompliance with specificity. Vague or uncorroborated testimony about general noncompliance is less persuasive than specific, documented records of missed parenting time.
Conversely, a noncustodial parent defending against a time-sharing noncompliance claim must be prepared to rebut the allegation of consistent failure to exercise time-sharing or to demonstrate that any missed time-sharing was attributable to the conduct of the other parent. The statutory language conditions the exception on failures that are not caused by the other parent. Evidence that the custodial parent interfered with or discouraged time-sharing exchanges may therefore defeat or limit the retroactive reach of a modification sought under this exception.
Strategic and Practical Considerations for Miami-Dade County Family Law Litigants
Filing Date Strategy in Initial Proceedings
Because the 24-month retroactive period under Florida Statute Section 61.30 runs back from the date the petition is filed, the filing date in an initial child support proceeding is a critical strategic variable. Custodial parents who delay filing a petition for child support lose access to the retroactive period that falls outside the 24-month window. A parent who separated from the other parent three years ago but files a petition today can only seek retroactive support for the 24 months immediately preceding today’s filing. The additional year of support prior to that window is permanently beyond the court’s reach.
Miami-Dade County family law practitioners therefore routinely advise newly separated clients to file petitions for child support as promptly as possible. Even if the parties are attempting to negotiate a settlement, filing a petition preserves the retroactive period while negotiations proceed. The existence of a filed petition does not prevent settlement; it simply ensures that the court retains jurisdiction to award the maximum retroactive period authorized by statute if a negotiated resolution is not achieved.
Documentary Evidence and Preparation for Retroactive Hearings
Whether the retroactive child support issue arises in an initial determination or in a modification proceeding invoking the time-sharing exception, the outcome will depend heavily on the quality of the documentary evidence presented. For the obligor parent seeking to demonstrate lower historical income, this means gathering several years of tax returns, W-2 forms, 1099 statements, pay stubs, bank statements, and any other financial records that can establish what the obligor actually earned during the retroactive period. An obligor who cannot produce adequate documentation risks having retroactive support calculated on the basis of current income, which may be significantly higher.
For either parent seeking to establish or defend against credits for payments made during the retroactive period, the documentation requirements are equally demanding. Bank statements, credit card records, canceled checks, wire transfer records, and receipts for goods and services purchased for the child’s benefit should all be preserved and organized. Under Florida Statute Section 61.30 and the appellate authority in Williams v. Gonzalez, 294 So. 3d 941 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020), and Appellant v. Warner, 422 So. 3d 1194 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2025), the court is required to consider these payments, and well-documented evidence of prior support expenditures can significantly reduce a retroactive obligation.
The Intersection of Retroactive Child Support and Settlement Negotiations
Retroactive child support claims can have a significant impact on settlement negotiations in Miami family law cases. When one parent faces substantial retroactive exposure, the potential financial liability creates both an incentive to settle and a source of leverage for the opposing party. At the same time, the statutory limits on retroactivity, the available credit for prior payments, and the burden of proof on the obligor to demonstrate historical income all create arguable positions on both sides that can inform settlement value assessments.
Experienced Miami family law attorneys approach retroactive support issues in settlement discussions by carefully analyzing the range of potential outcomes at trial, accounting for the statutory cap under Florida Statute Section 61.30, the available credits for prior payments as required by that statute and confirmed by the appellate courts in Williams v. Gonzalez and Appellant v. Warner, and the income evidence that each side is likely to present. A realistic assessment of these variables allows parties and counsel to evaluate whether a negotiated resolution offers advantages over the uncertainties of a contested hearing.
Conclusion
Retroactive child support in Florida is a nuanced area of family law that operates under different rules depending on whether the proceeding involves an initial determination or a modification of an existing order. In initial child support proceedings, Florida Statute Section 61.30 grants the court discretion to award retroactive support reaching back up to 24 months before the filing of the petition, calculated using current guideline schedules unless the obligor demonstrates actual historical income, and reduced by credit for all actual payments made for the child’s benefit during the retroactive period. These principles are reinforced by the Florida appellate courts in decisions including Williams v. Gonzalez, 294 So. 3d 941 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020), and Appellant v. Warner, 422 So. 3d 1194 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2025).
In modification proceedings, the legal standard shifts substantially. Florida Statute Section 61.14(1)(a) limits retroactive modification to the date the supplemental petition was filed, a rule that the Florida appellate courts have applied consistently in decisions such as Carmack v. Carmack, 316 So. 3d 396 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021), and Coriat v. Coriat, 306 So. 3d 356 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020). The filing date in a modification proceeding thus serves as a hard outer boundary on retroactive relief, making prompt filing a strategic imperative for any party seeking modification of a child support obligation.
The single most important exception to the modification retroactivity rule arises when a noncustodial parent fails to regularly exercise court-ordered or agreed time-sharing. Under Florida Statute Section 61.30, this failure is deemed a substantial change of circumstances, and any resulting modification is retroactive to the date the noncustodial parent first failed to regularly exercise the time-sharing schedule, not merely to the filing date of the supplemental petition. This exception, recognized by the Florida appellate courts in Coriat v. Coriat, can significantly expand the retroactive reach of a modification in the appropriate factual context.
For families navigating child support proceedings in Miami-Dade County, or Broward County, a thorough understanding of these statutory and case law principles is essential. The filing date, the 24-month cap, the documentation of historical income, and the identification and proof of credits for actual prior payments are all variables that can substantially affect the outcome of retroactive child support litigation. Legal counsel experienced in Florida family law can help parents evaluate their positions, gather the necessary evidence, and advocate effectively in Miami-Dade County family court.
TLDR: In an initial Florida child support case, courts may award retroactive child support for up to 24 months before the petition is filed, calculated under current guidelines and reduced by credit for all actual prior payments. In modification proceedings, retroactivity is generally limited to the filing date of the supplemental petition, unless the noncustodial parent failed to regularly exercise time-sharing, in which case the modification reaches back to the first date of noncompliance under Florida Statute Section 61.30.
How far back can a Florida court award retroactive child support in an initial case?
In an initial determination of child support, Florida law authorizes the court to award retroactive child support reaching back to the date the parents stopped residing together in the same household with the child, subject to a maximum of 24 months before the petition was filed. See Fla. Stat. Section 61.30; Williams v. Gonzalez, 294 So. 3d 941 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020).
What income does a Florida court use to calculate retroactive child support?
The court applies the guidelines schedule in effect at the time of the hearing. However, the obligor may present evidence of actual income during the retroactive period to obtain a calculation based on historical earnings. If the obligor fails to demonstrate actual historical income, the court uses the obligor’s current income for the retroactive calculation. See Fla. Stat. Section 61.30.
Are payments made voluntarily before a court order credited against retroactive child support?
In an initial retroactive award, Florida Statute Section 61.30 requires the court to consider all actual payments made for the child’s benefit during the retroactive period. This statutory mandate is distinct from the general voluntary payment rule in Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 994 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008), which applies to offsetting arrears under an existing order. The appellate court in Williams v. Gonzalez confirmed that the obligor is entitled to credit for qualifying payments during the retroactive period.
How does retroactivity work in a Florida child support modification case?
In a modification proceeding, retroactivity is generally limited to the date the supplemental petition was filed. Florida Statute Section 61.14(1)(a) does not permit retroactive modification prior to the filing date. This rule has been applied by the Florida appellate courts in Carmack v. Carmack, 316 So. 3d 396 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021), and Coriat v. Coriat, 306 So. 3d 356 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020).
What is the time-sharing exception to modification retroactivity in Florida?
When a noncustodial parent fails to regularly exercise court-ordered or agreed time-sharing, and that failure is not caused by the other parent, Florida Statute Section 61.30 deems this a substantial change of circumstances and authorizes a modification retroactive to the date the noncustodial parent first failed to regularly exercise the time-sharing schedule. This exception extends the retroactive reach beyond the filing date of the supplemental petition.
Does it matter when I file my petition for child support in Miami?
Yes. The filing date is critical in both initial determinations and modification proceedings. In initial cases, the 24-month retroactive window is measured back from the filing date, so delay reduces retroactive recovery. In modification cases, retroactivity cannot reach beyond the filing date under Florida Statute Section 61.14, except in the time-sharing noncompliance context. Prompt filing is consistently the advisable course under Florida family law.
Speak With a Miami Family Law Attorney About Your Child Support Case
If you are facing a retroactive child support claim or need to seek retroactive support for your child in Miami-Dade County, Broward County, or Palm Beach County, the legal framework discussed in this article will directly affect your rights and obligations. The Law Firm of Jeffrey Alan Aenlle, PLLC, is a Miami family law practice dedicated exclusively to Florida family law matters. The firm’s principal, Jeffrey Alan Aenlle, Attorney at Law, is experienced in all aspects of Florida child support litigation, including retroactive awards, modification proceedings, and time-sharing noncompliance claims.
Do not lose the retroactive support period your family is entitled to recover. Contact us to schedule a consultation.
