With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 114 So.2d 33, 38-39 (1st DCA 1959), quashed on other grounds, 130 So.2d 580 (Fla.1961). Similarly, in the instant case, there is not ley to pay one-half of all the child’s uncovered medical expenses, but omitted the inclm sion of this requirement in the written final judgment. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court is directed to conform the judgment to the oral pronouncement. The judgment of the trial court is REVERSED and as to certain issues REMANDED for consistent proceedings. JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur. 1 . Bailey filed the paternity action fifteen months after the birth of the child. 2 . Bailey, who lives several hours away from Bar-din and the child, had visited the child four times in the previous two years. 3 . See Campbell v. Campbell, 635 So.2d 44, 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(<HOLDING>); Brock v. Brock, 695 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA

A: holding that an outofwedlock childs pending claim for retroactive child support was nondischargeable in bankruptcy because a debt for child support arises upon the birth of the child and that the fact that no court had yet ordered the debtor to support the child does not take the debt outside the scope of 11 usc  523a5
B: 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
C: 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
D: holding that the order on the wifes petition for modification of child support was a final order because it disposed of all the issues except for the ancillary issue of attorneys fees
C.