representation that the father had not been served with a copy of the petition. The father indeed had received timely service of the original petition for modification, approximately two weeks after the mother had filed her petition. Notwithstanding that the father had received timely service of the original petition, he misrepresented this fact to the trial court when he moved to dismiss the mother’s amended petition for modification. In his motion to dismiss, the father argued that the court should dismiss the original petition because he was never served within the requisite 120 days. Thus, the father was well aware of the initial modification proceeding, and he should not be allowed to benefit from his own wrongdoing. See Dep’t of Revenue v. Jackson, 846 So.2d 486, 498 (Fla.2003) (<HOLDING>). Although the mother did not move for
holding that equitable principles apply to child support proceedings recognizing that in cases involving public housing it is an equitable defense and the court may apply equitable principles for the nonpayment of back rent to prevent eviction of a qualified indigent tenant holding that it was error for the trial court to determine the issue of child support without a child support guidelines worksheet holding that equitable tolling principles apply to suits against the united states in the same manner as they apply to private parties holding that parents may not voluntarily terminate their rights in a child to avoid child support payments or contract away a child support obligation