Full Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 11, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D19-1181 Lower Tribunal Nos. CSP No. 2000912089, 13170017926 FC ________________ Randy O'Steen, Appellant, vs. State of Florida Department of Revenue Child Support Program, Appellee. An Appeal from the State of Florida, Department of Revenue. Randy O'Steen, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General and Toni C. Bernstein (Tallahassee), Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before LINDSEY, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Randy O’Steen challenges the administrative support order of the Department of Revenue (the “Department”), and corresponding income deduction order, entered in proceedings under section 409.2563(7), Florida Statutes. O’Steen seeks judicial review of the administrative order pursuant to section 409.2563(10)(a), arguing that retroactive support was incorrectly calculated as he disputes the period for which it was ordered, claiming that the parties and child lived together. He further argues that he provided support to the mother for which he was not given credit. Based on the record before this court, we must affirm. O’Steen failed to participate in the administrative proceedings by returning the forms for financial and parent information supplied to him by the Department and failed to provide a written change of address after being advised of the need to and the consequences for failing to do so. Thus, he has not preserved any issue for this Court’s appellate review. By waiving his right to a hearing, O’Steen waived his ability to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the Department’s determination of his child support obligations. See § 409.2563(7)(b), Fla. Stat.; Standard v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, Child Support Enf’t Program, 249 So. 3d 798, 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); see also Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error. . . . When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing 2 court to draw conclusions about the evidence. Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.”) Affirmed. 3