I expect the state is relying upon this case:
Quote Quoting Dep't of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement v. Baker, 24 So. 3d 1254 (2009)
Finally, the Department claims that the trial court had no authority under TRIP to restrict its ability to intercept or retain appellee's future IRS tax refund to satisfy past-due child support. We agree. In Department of Revenue ex rel. Jackson v. Nesbitt, 975 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), the Fourth District held that the trial court lacked authority to order the Department to lift federally mandated restrictions on the father's passport due to the father's child support arrearages in excess of $5,000 because the trial court could not interfere with the statutory authority delegated to the Department to certify to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the father was eligible for passport restrictions. This court followed Nesbitt in State, Department of Revenue v. Walton, 12 So. 3d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). These cases are applicable here because the passport restriction and tax refund intercept programs are all part of a comprehensive child support enforcement scheme. See generally State ex rel. Pittman v. Stanjeski, 562 So. 2d 673, 677-78 (Fla. 1990). The trial court was without authority to place restrictions on the interception or retention of appellee's IRS tax refund because this interfered with the authority delegated to the Department under TRIP.
Under the case law, if your child support arrearage was over $5,000, the court's order was federally preempted