In Dart v. Dart, the Fourth District Court of Appeal quietly but firmly reaffirmed two principles that matter deeply in high-asset family law cases:

1. Child support is the child’s right, not a bargaining chip between parents.
2. Agreed orders and pretrial stipulations are not suggestions—they are binding roadmaps that courts are expected to follow.

The case arose out of a financially sophisticated divorce, complete with a prenuptial agreement, choice-of-law issues, and substantial wealth on the husband’s side. But the appellate court’s analysis is less about money than it is about discipline—both legal and procedural.

The Setup: Deferred Child Support, by Agreement

Early in the case, the wife sought temporary child support. Instead of litigating that issue immediately, the parties entered into agreed orders that did two important things:

• Confirmed that Florida law, not Pennsylvania law, governed child support.
• Explicitly provided that child support would be addressed at trial, and that any unpaid support could be awarded retroactively once the court determined the proper amount.

In other words, the parties agreed to defer the calculation—not waive the obligation.

No later order modified that agreement. No stipulation walked it back. The case then proceeded to trial.

The Trial Court’s Error: Discretion Where None Existed

At the end of trial, the judge denied retroactive child support entirely, reasoning that:

• The prenuptial agreement controlled (it did not).
• There was no evidence the children were adversely affected.
• The mother had, in effect, tolerated the delay.

That analysis failed for two independent reasons.

First, child support cannot be contracted away, directly or indirectly. Florida law is clear: parents cannot waive their children’s right to support, even by agreement.

Second—and more fundamentally—the trial court ignored its own agreed pretrial orders.

The Appellate Court’s Correction: Agreements Matter

The Fourth District reviewed the issue de novo because the outcome turned on the interpretation of agreed orders. It held that the February 2022 orders were:

• Clear
• Unambiguous
• Binding on both the parties and the court

Relying on established Florida precedent, the court emphasized that pretrial stipulations are meant to be “powerful blueprints” for trial—not placeholders that evaporate at judgment.

Once the parties agreed that unpaid child support would be subject to retroactive award, the trial court did not have discretion to pretend that agreement never existed.

A Subtle but Important Reminder About Child Support

The opinion also reinforces a point that is sometimes lost in high-asset divorces:

A child’s needs are not measured by whether the other parent can afford to cover them alone.

Even when one parent has ample resources, the other parent’s support obligation does not disappear. Child support is a shared, statutory duty, allocated according to relative incomes—not a needs-based charity.

As the court reiterated, appellate courts “routinely find it error” when retroactive child support is denied without a legally sound basis.

Why This Case Matters

For clients, the takeaway is straightforward:

• If an order says an issue will be addressed later, that does not mean it can be ignored.
• If you agree to defer child support, you are not agreeing to erase it.
• Courts are expected to enforce the agreements they enter.

For lawyers, the lesson is sharper:

• Agreed orders must be drafted carefully—and respected relentlessly.
• Trial courts do not have discretion to override clear pretrial stipulations.
• When child support is deferred by agreement, retroactivity is not an afterthought; it is the point.

The Bottom Line

Dart v. Dart is not a headline-grabbing opinion. It does not announce new law. Instead, it does something more important: it enforces the law as written, the agreements as signed, and the principle that children’s rights do not yield to procedural convenience.

In family law—especially at the high end—precision matters. And when parties agree to a framework, courts are expected to honor it.