A recent 2025 Florida appellate decision, Morrell v. Alsentzer, provides a critical clarification on one of the most confusing and high-stakes issues in family law: retroactive child support. The case addresses a common scenario: What happens when a child support order was never put in place, the child unofficially moves in with the other parent, and that parent doesn’t file for support until after the child has already turned 18?
The trial court dismissed the Mother’s petition, ruling that she had no “standing” to pursue child support after the child was an adult. The Fourth District Court of Appeal firmly reversed this decision. The appellate court held that a parent’s emancipation does not extinguish the parent’s right to seek retroactive child support for the time the child was a minor. The court also clarified the “24-month lookback” rule, holding that the Mother’s 2021 petition was the “initial determination” of support, allowing her to seek support retroactive to 2019, even though the original paternity case was from 2010.
This case is a crucial reminder that child support obligations are a serious legal matter and that a parent’s “standing” to collect past-due support is not easily erased. For anyone in Tampa navigating a child support issue, this case highlights the technical pitfalls and legal rights that an experienced Tampa divorce lawyer must manage.
The Common Misconception: The Myth of the 18th Birthday
In many family law disputes, there is a pervasive and dangerous misconception that the day a child turns 18, all financial obligations and legal claims simply evaporate. This is false, and the Morrell case is a perfect example of why.
The Father in Morrell argued that because the Mother’s petition for support was still pending when the child turned 18, the court lost its “subject matter jurisdiction”—its very authority to hear the case. The trial court agreed, ruling that the Mother “lacked standing.”
The appellate court held that this was a fundamental misreading of the law. The court drew a bright, clear line between two different types of support:
- Prospective Child Support: This is “future” support for a child after they have turned 18. The Morrell court, like others, affirmed that a parent generally lacks standing to pursue this, as the duty of support typically ends at emancipation.
- Retroactive Child Support: This is “past” support. It is a claim for reimbursement for support that should have been paid while the child was still a minor.
The Morrell court, citing a history of similar cases, ruled that a parent absolutely maintains standing to pursue retroactive child support, even if the case is not heard until after the child is an adult. The right to this support is a right of the parentwho shouldered the financial burden alone, and that right is not extinguished just because the child is now 18. This is a critical legal protection for parents in Tampa who may have informally supported a child for years without a court order, often after an unofficial change in custody.
The 24-Month Retroactivity Rule: What is an “Initial Determination”?
The core of the Morrell decision is a deep analysis of Florida’s retroactivity statute. This law allows a court, in an “initial determination of child support,” to award support retroactive for a period of up to 24 months before the date the petition was filed.
This is where the facts of the Morrell case become so important and provide such a valuable lesson.
- 2010: The Father filed for paternity. The final order established paternity and timesharing (the child lived with him) but was completely silent on the issue of child support. It did not set it at $0, nor did it reserve jurisdiction. It simply did not mention it.
- 2019: The child moved in with the Mother.
- Jan 2021: The Mother filed her petition seeking support.
- Aug 2022: The child turned 18.
The trial court made two huge errors here. First, it ruled that the “petition” referred to in the statute was the Father’s original 2010 petition, meaning the Mother’s 24-month lookback window was long gone.
The appellate court called this a clear error. The 2010 order, because it was silent on support, was not an “initial determination.” No determination was ever made. Therefore, the Mother’s 2021 petition—the first time either parent had formally asked the court to set a support amount—was, in fact, the “initial determination” petition.
This finding is the legal lynchpin of the whole case. Because the Mother’s 2021 petition was the “initial” one, it “unlocked” two separate periods of retroactive support that she now has the standing to claim:
- The 24-Month Discretionary Period (Jan 2019 – Jan 2021): The court now has the discretion to look back 24 months from her filing date (Jan 2021) and award support for that period.
- The Post-Filing Period (Jan 2021 – Aug 2022): The court can also award support from the date she filed her petition until the date the child was emancipated.
This ruling has massive financial implications. It means the Mother, who was told by the trial court that she was entitled to nothing, now has the right to go back to court and seek over three-and-a-half years of retroactive child support. This is a powerful demonstration of how a technical understanding of the law, often requiring the skill of a Tampa divorce lawyer, can dramatically change an outcome.
The Danger of “Silent” Judgments: A Trap for Tampa Parents
The Morrell case is a harsh lesson in the dangers of ambiguity and “silent” agreements. The entire legal battle, which has now been litigated for years and all the way to the appellate court, stems from the 2010 paternity order’s failure to address child support.
At the time, this may have seemed fine to the parties. The child lived with the Father, so perhaps they thought support was a non-issue. But this silence was a legal time bomb.
Here is what every Tampa divorce lawyer knows: if the 2010 order had been drafted differently, this entire case would be different.
- If the 2010 Order Set Support: If the order had included a child support guidelines worksheet and, finding the child lived with the Father, ordered the Mother to pay $0.00, that would have been an “initial determination.”
- The Impact: If that had happened, the Mother’s 2021 petition would not be an “initial” petition. It would be a “Petition for Modification.” This distinction is critical because the 24-month retroactivity rule does not apply to modifications. In that scenario, the Mother’s retroactive support claim would have been limited only to the date she filed her petition (Jan 2021).
The Father’s failure to get a formal child support determination (even at $0) in 2010 is what left the door open for the Mother’s 24-month lookback claim a decade later. This is a perfect example of why “handshake” agreements or ambiguous court orders are so dangerous in family law. A parent’s duty to support their child is a fundamental public policy, and courts will look for any legal avenue to enforce it.
A skilled Tampa divorce lawyer will insist on a formal child support order in every paternity or divorce case, even if the parents have 50/50 timesharing and no money is changing hands. A formal order, with a guidelines worksheet attached, establishes the “initial determination” and prevents this exact kind of “lookback” claim from appearing unexpectedly years down the road.
The Court’s Final Error: A Motion to Dismiss is Not a Final Hearing
The trial court made one final, reversible error. In its order dismissing the case, the judge stated that it would be “unjust” to allow the Mother to pursue retroactive support now when the Father had never received it when he had the child.
The appellate court pointed out that this was a complete overstep. The only issue before the court was the Father’s motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss is a technical legal filing that tests only the “four corners” of the petition. It asks one simple question: “Assuming every single thing the Mother wrote in her petition is true, does she have a legal right to askfor what she’s asking for?”
The appellate court’s answer was a resounding “yes.” She alleged the child lived with her, that she supported the child, and that there was no prior support order. These allegations are legally sufficient to give her “standing” to ask for support.
The trial judge’s comments about what was “just” or “fair” were an improper jump to the “merits” of the case. Whether the Mother is actually entitled to that support is a question for a final evidentiary hearing, where the judge will hear evidence on:
- The Mother’s actual expenses for those years.
- The Father’s income and ability to pay during that time.
- Any “equitable” defenses the Father may have (like, for example, if he can prove he was paying for the child’s car, health insurance, or other expenses directly).
The trial court’s error was in “short-circuiting” the legal process. It dismissed the case based on a “feeling” of unfairness, rather than allowing the case to proceed to an evidentiary hearing as required by law. This is a critical procedural protection that any Tampa divorce lawyer will rely on to ensure a client gets their day in court.
What This Means for Your Tampa Child Support Case
The Morrell decision clarifies several critical, high-stakes issues that are extremely common in Tampa child support cases.
1. “Standing” is Not a Loophole for Back-Support: You cannot evade a child support obligation simply by waiting until the child turns 18 and then claiming the other parent “lacks standing.” The right to claim retroactive support for the time the child was a minor survives emancipation.
2. The 24-Month Lookback is Powerful: This rule is a powerful tool for a parent who has been supporting a child without a court order. If there has been no “initial determination” of support, a Tampa divorce lawyer can use your petition to “look back” 24 months before your filing date.
3. “Silent” Judgments Are Incredibly Dangerous: If your original divorce or paternity order is silent on child support, it is an open legal liability. That silence is what allows the other parent to file for an “initial determination” years later and potentially hit you with a massive retroactive support claim. A Tampa divorce lawyer should be consulted to review any old, “silent” order to see if it can be fixed.
4. You Have a Right to Your Day in Court: A judge cannot simply dismiss your legally sufficient petition based on a “gut feeling” of what is “fair.” You have the right to a full evidentiary hearing to present your evidence and make your case on the merits.
Child support is one of the most technical and formula-driven areas of family law, and yet, as Morrell shows, it is also filled with complex legal doctrines of “standing,” “jurisdiction,” and “retroactivity.” One word in a 10-year-old agreement can be the difference between owing nothing and owing tens of thousands of dollars.
The law surrounding child support, especially retroactive claims, is complex and unforgiving. A single misinterpretation of a statute or a prior order can have devastating financial consequences. If you are in the Tampa or Hillsborough County area and are dealing with a child support issue—whether it involves an initial petition, a modification, or a claim for past-due support—it is critical to have experienced legal counsel. Contact our office for a consultation to review the specific facts of your case and your legal options.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is retroactive child support in Florida? Retroactive child support is past-due support that a court can award to a parent. It covers a period before the court order was entered, typically when one parent was supporting the child without any contribution from the other.
Can I get child support after my child turns 18? You generally cannot get future support for a child who is an adult (barring certain disability exceptions). However, as the Morrell case confirms, you can still file a case to collect retroactive support for the time the child was a minor, even if they are now over 18.
What is an “initial determination” of child support? This is the first time a court establishes a child support obligation. If your original divorce or paternity decree was completely silent on the issue (it did not set an amount or reserve jurisdiction), no “initial determination” has been made, and the door is open for a future petition.
How far back can retroactive child support go in Florida? In an “initial determination” case, a court has the discretion to award support for up to 24 months before the date the petition was filed. The court will also award support from the date of filing until the date of the final hearing.
What is the difference between an initial petition and a modification petition for child support? An “initial” petition is the first time the court is asked to set support. A “modification” petition is filed after an initial order is already in place, and it seeks to change that existing order based on a substantial change in circumstances. This distinction is critical, as the 24-month retroactivity rule generally only applies to initial petitions.
The McKinney Law Group: Tampa Divorce Lawyers Committed to Fair Resolutions
Whether your divorce involves complex assets or parenting disputes, we help Tampa clients reach balanced resolutions that protect their financial and emotional well-being.
Call 813-428-3400 or email [email protected] to speak with an attorney.