which applies un-unthere is a basis for determining that the award should not be retroactive.” Id. The former husband’s petition requested that the modification be applied retroactively to the date he filed the petition. The court’s supplemental final judgment does not provide its rationale for denying retroactive application. And nothing in the records supports a denial. See Thyrre, 963 So.2d at 862. “Where the circumstances that give rise to a modification of child support exist at the time during which a petition for modification is filed, failure to order the modification retroactive to the date of the filing of the petition constitutes an abuse of discretion.” Spano v. Bruce, 62 So.3d 2, 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see also Kowal v. Tomlinson, 780 So.2d 172, 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>). On remand, the trial court should grant the
holding that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award the increased child support retroactive to the date of the petition for modification because the childs increased need for support and the former husbands ability to pay the increased child support existed at the time the former wifes petition for modification was filed holding that trial court abused its discretion in failing to order child support retroactive to date of filing where there was no evidence that husband was unable to pay the ordered amount during that period of time holding that trial court was required to give full effect to supreme courts judgment and that by failing to do so the trial court abused its discretion holding that the trial court had erred in imposing an obligation to pay child support when clear and convincing evidence established that the husband was not the father of the child holding in modification suit in which no enforcement was ordered that trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering father to pay mothers attorneys fees as child support under the necessaries rule