Florida High-Income Child Support & Good Fortune Trusts
High-income child support cases are different.
In an ordinary child support case, the parents’ combined income, health insurance, daycare, overnight time-sharing, and other guideline factors may produce a support number that is reasonably connected to the child’s monthly living expenses. In a high-income case, the guideline number can be far above the child’s basic food, clothing, housing, and school expenses.
That does not mean the child is limited to bare necessities. It also does not mean the other parent receives an unlimited windfall.
Florida law recognizes both principles. A child may share in the good fortune of a wealthy parent, but the support award must still be tied to the child’s needs, station in life, standard of living, age, and the parents’ financial circumstances. In the right case, the court may structure support so that money needed for the child’s immediate care is paid to the residential parent, while excess funds are protected for the child through a guardian of the child’s property.
That structure is often called a “good fortune trust.”
At Mockler Leiner Law, P.A., we handle complex Florida child support cases involving high-income parents, business owners, professional income, variable compensation, closely held companies, trusts, investment income, and disputes over whether child support is being calculated or used properly. If your case involves significant income, unusual compensation, or a dispute over how support should be structured, the analysis must go beyond a simple online calculator.
Quick Answer: What Is a Good Fortune Trust in Florida Child Support?
A “good fortune trust” is a shorthand phrase used in high-income child support cases where the guideline amount exceeds what is reasonably needed for the child’s immediate monthly expenses. Instead of simply reducing support to bare needs, the court may allow the child to share in the high-income parent’s good fortune and protect excess funds for the child.
The leading Florida case is Finley v. Scott, 707 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1998). In Finley, the Florida Supreme Court held that the trial court must start with the statutory child support guidelines, consider the statutory and case-law factors, and make specific findings if it deviates from the guideline amount by more than 5%. The Court also approved the idea that money not needed for immediate custodial maintenance may be paid to a guardian of the child’s property, but only through the proper legal guardianship process.
That means the “good fortune trust” is not a free-floating account controlled by the family court, a guardian ad litem, or the receiving parent. After Finley, the cleaner way to describe the structure is this: in the right case, excess child support may be protected through a probate-court-appointed guardian of the child’s property.
Why High-Income Child Support Cases Are Different
Florida child support starts with section 61.30, Florida Statutes. The statute creates a presumptive child support amount based on the parents’ combined monthly net income and the number of children. For combined monthly net income above the top of the schedule, the statute adds a percentage of the income over $10,000.
For income over $10,000 in combined monthly net income, the statutory add-on percentages are:
5.0% for one child;
7.5% for two children;
9.5% for three children;
11.0% for four children;
12.0% for five children; and
12.5% for six children.
That formula can produce a large support number when one parent earns very high income. In those cases, the legal fight is often not whether the guideline number exists. The fight is whether the guideline number should be applied as calculated, deviated downward, paid partly to the other parent, or partly protected for the child.
That is why high-income child support cases often require careful litigation over:
the paying parent’s true income;
whether income is recurring or nonrecurring;
business income, retained earnings, perquisites, distributions, and add-backs;
the child’s actual monthly expenses;
the child’s lifestyle before and after separation;
private school, tutors, travel, extracurriculars, therapy, and enrichment;
whether the receiving parent is using support for the child;
whether funds should be protected for the child rather than treated as household spending money; and
whether a deviation from the guideline amount is legally justified.
These issues frequently arise in divorce cases involving executives, physicians, lawyers, entrepreneurs, professional athletes, entertainers, investors, and business owners. They also arise in cases involving closely held companies, S corporations, partnerships, K-1 income, retained earnings, and disputed owner benefits. Those issues often overlap with the same income problems we address in divorce cases involving business owners and closely held companies.
The Starting Point: Florida’s Child Support Guidelines
The most common mistake in a high-income child support case is jumping directly to the child’s monthly expense list.
That is not the correct starting point.
Under Finley v. Scott, the trial court must begin with the child support guideline amount under section 61.30. The guideline amount is presumptive. A court may deviate from the guideline amount, but a deviation greater than 5% requires written findings explaining why the guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate.
In other words, the court does not simply ask, “What does the child need to survive this month?”
The court must consider the guideline amount first, then evaluate the statutory and equitable factors. That includes the child’s needs, age, station in life, standard of living, and each parent’s financial status and ability to pay.
For parents dealing with child support in divorce, paternity, modification, or enforcement litigation, our Florida child support lawyer page explains the broader child support framework, including income disputes, deviations, retroactive support, enforcement, and modification.
Miller v. Schou: A Child May Share in a Parent’s Good Fortune
The modern Florida good-fortune analysis begins with Miller v. Schou, 616 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1993).
In Miller, the Florida Supreme Court held that a substantial increase in a paying parent’s income can justify increased child support even without a separate showing that the child’s basic needs have increased. The Court rejected the idea that a child is limited to subsistence-level support when a parent’s financial circumstances have dramatically improved.
Miller is important because it explains what “need” means in a high-income child support case. Need is not limited to food, shelter, and clothing. A child of a wealthy parent may have appropriate access to a higher standard of living, such as private education, extracurricular activities, travel, enrichment, and other opportunities consistent with the family’s station in life.
But Miller also draws a line. A child may share in good fortune, but the support award cannot be used to create absurd luxury, punishment, or disguised wealth transfer. The child of a multimillionaire may have an enhanced lifestyle, but the child does not receive an unlimited right to spend the parent’s wealth.
That balance is the heart of high-income child support litigation.
Boyt v. Romanow: The Early Good Fortune Trust Case
The phrase “good fortune trust” is often associated with Boyt v. Romanow, 664 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
In Boyt, the Second District addressed a high-income child support award where the guideline amount exceeded the child’s immediate monthly needs. The trial court ordered part of the support to be paid directly for the child’s day-to-day support and the balance to be placed into a trust-like structure for the child.
Boyt recognized the concern that, in a high-income case, child support may include money that is legitimately for the child but not necessarily needed for the child’s immediate monthly expenses. The court approved the concept that excess support could be protected for the child’s future benefit.
But Boyt did not have the final word.
Finley later clarified the proper procedure.
Finley v. Scott: The Leading Florida Good Fortune Trust Case
Finley v. Scott, 707 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1998) is the key case for good fortune trusts in Florida child support litigation.
The case involved former NBA player Dennis Scott. The child support guidelines produced a very large monthly support figure because of Scott’s income. The trial court found that the full guideline amount exceeded the child’s immediate monthly needs. Instead of ordering the entire guideline amount paid directly to the mother, the trial court ordered a portion paid for direct support and another portion paid to a guardian for the child.
The Florida Supreme Court approved the basic legal framework, but it was very specific about the steps the trial court must follow.
What Finley Requires
Finley requires a high-income child support court to do the following:
start with the child support guideline amount under section 61.30;
recognize that the guideline amount is presumptive;
evaluate whether a deviation is justified;
consider the child’s needs, age, station in life, standard of living, and the parents’ financial circumstances;
make written findings if the court deviates more than 5% from the guideline amount; and
use the proper guardianship procedure if funds are to be protected for the child rather than paid directly to the residential parent.
Finley also clarified that the family court cannot simply create its own informal trust structure. If money is being placed beyond the immediate control of the residential parent for the child’s property, the proper mechanism is a legal guardianship of the child’s property through the probate court.
That procedural point matters.
A guardian ad litem is not the same thing as a guardian of the child’s property. A family court order saying “put it in trust” is not enough if the legal guardianship requirements have not been satisfied. A true guardian of the property has fiduciary obligations and operates under the legal protections that apply to a minor’s property.
The Updated Rule After Finley
A Florida Bar Journal article published shortly after the Finley decision on this topic remains useful because it identified the central tension in high-income child support cases: how to let a child share in a wealthy parent’s good fortune without converting child support into an uncontrolled transfer to the other parent.
But the article is old. The current Florida analysis should be stated more carefully.
The updated rule is:
Florida courts must begin with section 61.30, calculate the presumptive guideline amount, consider the statutory deviation factors and the child’s good-fortune right under Miller and Finley, and make written findings for any deviation greater than 5%. If the court determines that part of the support is not needed for immediate custodial maintenance but should still be preserved for the child, the court may use a guardian of the child’s property through the proper guardianship process.
That is the safer way to litigate the issue today.
A.G.W. v. C.L.C.: The Second DCA Reaffirms Good Fortune in Modern High-Income Cases
The most important recent Florida appellate decision on this issue is A.G.W. v. C.L.C., 355 So. 3d 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023).
A.G.W. involved a professional baseball player whose income increased significantly after an earlier child support agreement. The trial court focused heavily on the child’s stated monthly needs and reduced the support analysis to those expenses. The Second District reversed.
The Second District explained that a high-income child support case cannot be decided based only on the child’s basic monthly expenses. The court must also account for the child’s right to share in the paying parent’s good fortune, consistent with Miller and Finley.
A.G.W. is especially important because it is recent, it comes from the Second District Court of Appeal, and it confirms that Florida courts still apply the good-fortune doctrine in modern high-income support cases.
For parents litigating in the Tampa Bay area, that matters. Family law cases in Hillsborough County, Pinellas County, Pasco County, and surrounding areas are governed by the same Florida statutes and appellate decisions, and Second District Court of Appeal cases can be especially important in this region.
Does Florida Cap Child Support in High-Income Cases?
No. Florida does not impose a simple hard cap on child support just because a parent is wealthy.
Section 61.30 provides a formula for combined monthly net income over $10,000. The guideline amount remains presumptive. But the court may deviate from the presumptive amount when the statutory factors justify it and the court makes the required findings.
That is why both sides must be prepared.
A high-income parent should not assume the court will reduce support to the child’s bare monthly expense list. The other parent should not assume the court will automatically order the full guideline number paid directly into that parent’s checking account.
The question is what amount and structure are legally justified under the statute, the evidence, and the case law.
What Evidence Matters in a High-Income Child Support Case?
High-income child support cases are evidence-heavy. The court needs more than broad claims that the paying parent is rich or that the receiving parent spends too much money.
Important evidence may include:
tax returns;
W-2s, 1099s, K-1s, and pay statements;
business financial statements;
owner distributions;
retained earnings;
personal expenses paid by a business;
deferred compensation;
bonuses, commissions, stock options, RSUs, carried interest, or equity compensation;
investment income;
trust distributions;
real estate income;
lifestyle evidence;
private school tuition;
tutoring, therapy, medical, dental, and extracurricular expenses;
travel expenses;
childcare and nanny expenses;
household expenses tied to the child;
the child’s pre-separation standard of living;
the parents’ post-separation financial circumstances; and
proof of whether support is being used for the child.
In complex cases, forensic accountants, business valuation experts, tax professionals, vocational experts, and other professionals may be necessary. Our page on professionals and experts in Florida family law cases explains how expert testimony can affect contested family law issues, including income and support disputes.
Child Support for Business Owners and High-Income Professionals
High-income child support cases are not limited to professional athletes. Many of the hardest cases involve business owners and professionals whose income is not shown accurately by a single paycheck.
For example, a business owner may claim a modest salary while also receiving distributions, retained earnings, company-paid expenses, vehicle benefits, travel, meals, insurance, retirement contributions, or other economic benefits. A physician, executive, investor, or entrepreneur may have bonuses, equity compensation, deferred income, or income that fluctuates year to year.
The child support analysis must determine true income, not just taxable income and not just the number shown on a paycheck.
That is why high-income child support often overlaps with business valuation, alimony, equitable distribution, and tax issues. In divorce cases involving companies, retained earnings, and owner compensation, our business owner divorce page discusses the same types of financial disputes that frequently affect child support.
When Is a Good Fortune Trust Appropriate?
A good fortune trust, or more accurately a guardian-of-property structure, may be appropriate when:
the guideline support amount is very high;
the child’s immediate monthly expenses do not require all of the support to be paid directly to the residential parent;
the child is still entitled to share in the paying parent’s good fortune;
the court wants to protect excess funds for the child;
there is concern that direct payment of the full amount will not benefit the child;
the funds may be needed for future education, medical needs, enrichment, or other child-focused purposes; or
the amount of support is large enough that fiduciary oversight is justified.
This is not automatic. The party asking for a good fortune trust structure must present evidence and a legally sound plan. The court must still comply with section 61.30 and Finley.
When Is a Good Fortune Trust Misused?
The good fortune trust concept can be misused in two opposite ways.
First, a paying parent may misuse the concept by arguing that child support should be reduced to only the child’s bare necessities. That is not Florida law. Miller, Finley, and A.G.W. all reject a bare-needs-only approach in high-income cases.
Second, a receiving parent may misuse the concept by arguing that the full guideline amount should be paid directly to that parent with no limits, no evidence, and no accountability. That is also not the right analysis. Finley recognizes that excess support may be protected for the child when it is not needed for immediate custodial maintenance.
The proper analysis is not “minimum needs” versus “blank check.”
The proper analysis is the child’s reasonable support, appropriate lifestyle, good-fortune benefit, statutory guideline amount, and whether any excess should be protected for the child.
Can Child Support Be Used to Build Savings for the Child?
In a high-income case, yes, support may include more than immediate consumption.
Florida law recognizes that a child may benefit from a wealthy parent’s good fortune in ways that include education, enrichment, opportunities, and potentially funds protected for the child’s benefit. But the structure matters.
A parent should be careful about arguing that any support above immediate monthly bills is automatically improper. A.G.W. warns against that approach. On the other hand, the receiving parent should be prepared to prove how the requested support relates to the child’s lifestyle and best interests.
A properly structured order may distinguish between:
direct monthly support paid to the residential parent;
specific expenses paid directly by one parent;
private school, tutoring, therapy, travel, extracurricular, or medical expenses;
savings or protected funds for the child; and
funds placed under a guardian of the child’s property.
Modification of High-Income Child Support
High-income child support can also become an issue in modification cases.
A parent may seek upward modification when the paying parent’s income increases substantially. Under Miller, a substantial increase in the paying parent’s income can support an increase in child support even if the child’s basic expenses have not dramatically changed.
A parent may seek downward modification when income decreases, when support was based on unusually high income that no longer exists, or when the original support amount is no longer justified. But the court must still apply the statutory modification standards and child support guidelines.
Modification cases often involve the same financial questions as the original case: true income, recurring income, business benefits, bonuses, lifestyle, and the child’s appropriate standard of living. If the case also involves changes to parenting issues, our Tampa child custody modification attorneys page explains related modification principles.
Practical Litigation Strategy for High-Income Child Support
A strong high-income child support case should be built with precision. The evidence should show not only income, but also why the requested support amount and structure are appropriate.
For the parent seeking support, the case should usually focus on:
proving the paying parent’s true income;
identifying all recurring and nonrecurring income sources;
documenting the child’s actual expenses;
proving the child’s standard of living;
showing appropriate enrichment, education, travel, and extracurricular expenses;
explaining why the child should share in the paying parent’s good fortune; and
proposing a legally proper structure for any protected funds.
For the parent paying support, the case should usually focus on:
correcting inflated income claims;
separating recurring income from one-time income;
challenging unsupported expense claims;
proving what expenses actually benefit the child;
showing whether the requested amount would be excessive or inappropriate;
proposing direct payment of specific child expenses where appropriate; and
considering whether a guardian-of-property structure is necessary to protect excess funds.
In both situations, the details matter. The court needs a record that allows it to calculate the guideline amount, evaluate deviations, and make legally sufficient findings.
Frequently Asked Questions About High-Income Child Support and Good Fortune Trusts in Florida
What is high-income child support in Florida?
High-income child support refers to cases where the parents’ combined income is high enough that the statutory guideline calculation may produce support far above the child’s basic monthly expenses. These cases often involve business owners, executives, doctors, lawyers, athletes, entrepreneurs, investors, and parents with significant trust or investment income.
Does Florida child support stop at the child’s basic needs?
No. Florida law does not limit child support to bare necessities in high-income cases. A child may share in a parent’s good fortune when that support is consistent with the child’s appropriate lifestyle, age, needs, station in life, and the parents’ financial circumstances.
What is the leading Florida case on good fortune trusts?
The leading case is Finley v. Scott, 707 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1998). Finley explains that courts must start with the child support guidelines, consider the proper statutory and equitable factors, and use the proper legal guardianship procedure if excess support is protected for the child.
Is Boyt v. Romanow still important?
Yes, but Finley controls the modern procedure. Boyt v. Romanow, 664 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) helped develop the good fortune trust concept, but Finley clarified that excess funds must be handled through a legally proper guardian-of-property structure when the money is being preserved for the child.
What did A.G.W. v. C.L.C. add to the law?
A.G.W. v. C.L.C., 355 So. 3d 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) reaffirmed that Florida courts cannot decide high-income support cases based only on the child’s basic monthly expenses. The child’s right to share in a parent’s good fortune remains part of the analysis.
Can the court order all child support paid directly to the other parent?
It depends. In many cases, support is paid directly to the receiving parent. In a high-income case, however, if part of the support is not needed for immediate custodial maintenance, the court may consider whether funds should be protected for the child through the proper legal mechanism.
Can a good fortune trust pay for college?
A good fortune trust or guardian-of-property structure may preserve funds for the child’s benefit, but it should not be confused with an ordinary post-majority child support obligation. Florida child support generally follows statutory rules for duration. The specific order, guardianship structure, and applicable law must be reviewed carefully.
Does a wealthy parent automatically pay unlimited child support?
No. Wealth matters, but it does not create unlimited child support. The court must apply section 61.30, consider the evidence, evaluate the child’s appropriate lifestyle, and make required findings for deviations.
Can a parent request a good fortune trust in a paternity case?
Yes. Finley itself arose from a paternity case. The issue is not whether the parents were married. The issue is whether the child support evidence and legal structure justify protecting excess support for the child.
Do high-income child support cases require experts?
Often, yes. If income is disputed, variable, business-related, or tax-driven, expert testimony may be necessary. Forensic accountants and other financial professionals can be critical in determining true income and explaining whether the requested support amount is appropriate.
The Bottom Line
Florida high-income child support law is not a simple calculator exercise.
The court must start with the statutory guideline amount. The child may share in a high-income parent’s good fortune. The court may consider whether some support should be protected for the child instead of paid directly to the other parent. But the court must follow the statute, make proper findings, and use the correct legal procedure.
Finley v. Scott remains the central Florida case. Miller v. Schou explains why a child is not limited to bare necessities. A.G.W. v. C.L.C. confirms that the good-fortune doctrine is still alive in current Florida child support litigation.
If your case involves high income, business income, complex compensation, or a dispute over whether child support should be paid directly or protected for the child, you need a strategy built on evidence, statutes, and Florida appellate law.
Mockler Leiner Law, P.A. handles high net worth divorce cases, complex child support, divorce, paternity, modification, and enforcement cases throughout the Tampa Bay area. To discuss a high-income child support case, call us at (813) 331-5699 or contact us online.
