
    The State of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, v. In re: Deborah Claudia EZETA vs. Gregory Francois Frederic De La Begassiere, Appellee.
    No. 3D18-296
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed December 5, 2018.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein (Tallahassee), Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.
    Deborah Marks, PLLC, and Deborah B. Marks, Cutler Bay, for appellee Gregory Francois Frederic de La Begassiere.
    Before SCALES, LUCK and LINDSEY, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Gregory Francois Frederic de La Begassiere, the father, petitioned the trial court for a modification of monthly child support for his two minor children. After a hearing on January 10, 2018, the trial court ordered a downward modification from $1028.88 to $800.00 per month. Because de La Begassiere had left his job as a high school teacher in South Florida and returned to his native France to continue his own schooling, the trial court found that he was underemployed and imputed income to him to arrive at the $800.00 figure. The State of Florida Department of Revenue (Department), an intervenor below, appeals. Department maintains that the trial court did not comply or make findings consistent with section 61.30 of the Florida Statutes.

The record of the January 10, 2018 hearing reveals that the trial court and the parties converted the hearing into a de facto settlement conference, during which Department was represented by counsel who did not object to the downward modification amount or the procedure the trial court employed to ascertain this amount. We affirm the trial court's order of January 10, 2018, because any alleged error was not preserved. Chaiken v. Lewis, 754 So.2d 118, 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (holding that a party that acquiesced to a trial court determination did not preserve the issue for appellate review); Kitchens By Design v. Confino, 687 So.2d 364, 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ("We affirm the final judgment under review as the record does not reflect that the specific claim of error made on appeal was argued and presented to the lower court.").

Affirmed.  