Children's Issues Flashcards
What is the definition of a “parenting plan”?
§ 61.046(14) –“Parenting plan” is a document created to govern the relationship between the parents relating to decisions that must be made regarding the minor child and must contain a time-sharing schedule for the parents and child. The issues concerning the minor child may include, but are not limited to, the child’s education, health care, and physical, social, and emotional well-being. In creating the plan, all circumstances between the parents, including their historic relationship, domestic violence, and other factors must be taken into consideration.
How is a parenting plan established?
61.046(14)(a)
-agreed to by parties and approved by court or
-established by court
What must all parenting plans include under Chapter 61?
61.046(14)(b)
-All PP must address jurisdiction issues
-UCCJEA
-ICARA( International Child Abduction
Action)
-PKPA (Parental Kidnapping
Preventing Act)
-Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction enacted
at the Hague on October 25, 1980)
For purposes of the UCCJEA, a judgment or order incorporating a PP is considered what kind of determination?
61.046(14)(c) - a child custody determination
For purposes of ICARA and Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction enacted at the Hague on October 25, 1980, what does a PP establish?
61.046(14)(d) - rights of custody and rights of access
What are the minimum requirement of a PP approved by the Court?
61.13(2)(b)
1.Describe in adequate detail how the parents will share and be responsible for the daily tasks associated with the upbringing of the child;
2.Include the time-sharing schedule arrangements that specify the time that the minor child will spend with each parent;
- Designate who will be responsible for:
a. Any and all forms of health care. If the court orders shared parental
responsibility over health care decisions, the parenting plan must provide that either parent may consent to mental health treatment for the child.
b. School-related matters, including the address to be used for school-boundary determination and registration.
c. Other activities; and
4.Describe in adequate detail the methods and technologies that the parents will use to communicate with the child.
What happened in the case of Hernandez v. Mendoza (4th DCA 2022 case)?
Here, the 4th reversed the FJ for failure to meet the minimum statutory requirements set forth in 61.13(2)(b) - where trial court ordered shared parental responsibility but failed to provide that either parent may consent to mental health treatment for the child.
What did the case of Webking v Webking (1st DCA 2022 case) stand for?
Another case where a trial court failed to indicate in the FJ where shared parental responsibility was awarded that either parent may consent to mental treatment for the child. Court explained that the provision requiring parenting plans with shared parental responsibility to include that either parent may consent to mental health treatment was enacted as part of comprehensive law concerning mental health and substance abuse & the importance of mental health for kids in a family law dispute.
Which statue gives power to courts and jurisdiction to enter PP?
61.13(2)(a)
The court may approve, grant, or modify a parenting plan, notwithstanding that the child is not physically present in this state at the time of filing any proceeding under this chapter, if it appears to the court that the child was removed from this state for the primary purpose of removing the child from the court’s jurisdiction in an attempt to avoid the court’s approval, creation, or modification of a parenting plan
Must a child be in the State of FL at time action initiated in order for court to have jur?
61.13(2)(a) - no, not if it appears to court that child was removed from state for primary purposed of removing child from court’s just to avoid court entering a PP
What does Cone v Cone Fl. Supreme Court case stand for?
That court’s have inherent jurisdiction over minor children to do that which is necessary to protect the child’s best interests and welfare
Is the Court required to accept an agreed PP provided by the parties?
Pagliaro v. Pagliaro - No, trial court is NOT bound by parent’s agreement or by opinions of expert
When do parties’ agreement on shared parental responsibility becoming binding?
Upon approval of court.
Wayno v. Wayno - trial court did not err in denying a motion to enforce a mediation agreement awarding shared parental responsibility bc the better practice is for court to be fully informed about welfare of children first.
Does court have jurisdiction to establish or approve a PP in a domestic violence action?
741.30 authorizes court to establish PP upon ISSUANCE of injunction but if injunction denied or dismissed say bye bye to PP -
What is 61.13(2)(c)
The court shall determine all matters relating to parenting and time-sharing of each minor child of the parties in accordance with the best interests of the child AND in accordance with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, EXCEPT that modification of a parenting plan and time-sharing schedule requires a showing of a substantial & material change of circumstances.
What happened in Hassenplug v. Hassenplug (2022 2nd DCA case)
Parents agreed on all parenting issues except school and tried that issue. 2nd DCA held that court need not address every statutory factor but at a minimum, it must find in its ruling on school designation is in the child’s best interest. Decision concerning child’s best interest is paramount and should have evidentiary support.
Is a Court delegating its authority when it adopts portions or all of party’s proposed FJ?
Dickson v. Curtis Fla. 3d DCA 2022 -no, so long as the proposed order does not substitute a thoughtful and independent analysis of the facts and law by the trial court
Can court delegate decision making authority to a parent?
No
Give an example of court delegating decision making authority to a parent.
Letting a Father’s time-sharing with the child be at the sole discretion of Mother. A court may not delegate its responsibility to determine time-sharing to a third party. To prevent this abdication, “a reasonable time-sharing schedule based on the parent’s individual circumstances must be created based on the exercise of the court’s discretion, not the other parent’s”
Is it error for trial court to allow one parent’s timesharing to be reinstated based upon other parent and a professionals input?
Yes - improper delegation of authority.
Can a court limit a parent’s timesharing to times the other parent expressly approves?
No - improper delegation of authority.
Is it error for trial court to allow Father two nights a week provided he advised Mother “in advance” which days he intends to take the child?
4th DCA overturned the decision finding that the TS schedule was unreasonable & reasoned that normal planning for weekend and other leisure activities between Mother and child together could be difficult and easily disrupted under such a schedule
Can court delegate decision making to child?
Obvi, no.
Can trial court allow under tenets of shared parental responsibility if a child does not desire to attend an extracurricular activity, the child shall not be required to attend?
No, that’s contradictory to the award of shared parental responsibility & courts have found that such provision improperly delegates parental decision-making authority to the minor children.
Can the court order a time-sharing plan which states that, if the 10 year old child “desires to spend less time with Former Wife, then he shall be allowed to do so?
No, impermissible delegation of decision-making authority to minor child.
Can court delegate decision making authority to a counselor or therapist?
No
Can a court enter a final judgment awarding Mother sole parental responsibility and provide: “The parties are ORDERED to continue to work with their respective therapists and with a Dr. on a therapeutic reunification plan, should he find that it is in the best interests of the children & reserve jurisdiction to readdress this time-sharing schedule upon notice by the Dr. that the reunification process has commenced or by Motion of either party when Court states it has considered all criteria in Florida Statutes 61.13 in making this decision?”
Nope - improper delegation of decision making authority to a third party.
Can court order that F not introduce children to paramour until their therapist approves?
Nope - improper delegation of authority.
What happened in Munoz v. Munoz (2nd DCA 2017)?
Court attempted a fancy TS schedule phasing Dad into kid’s lives but left it up to therapist as to when phase 2 and 3 begin.
Court also said mom can replace therapist anytime - which is in improper delegation of authority
Last, and most concerning, court never defined WHEN dad would get or would ever get overnight timesharing.
SIMILIAR TO BARRACK CASE IN 2021
What happened in Barrack v. Barrack (4th DCA 2021)
The 4th DCA reversed trial court order which delegated the issue of reestablishment of Father’s resumed time-sharing with the minor children to Mother and her selected therapists
SIMLIAR TO MUNOZ 2017 CASE
Can court delegate decision making authority to GAL?
Nope
Can court defer to GAL to recommend TS?
Under Florida Statutes, GALs may make recommendations and reports to the court, but such recommendations and reports are not binding on the parties. Courts may not delegate their statutory authority to determine visitation to GALs, attorneys, or experts
Can Court delegate decision making authority to parenting coordinator?
NOPE
HYPO - Parenting coordinator issued written report to court regarding parties, their relationship, witnesses, and incidents which precipitated both parties filing motions with the court and making recommendations. The court held hearings on the motions and made no significant findings or pronouncements at the hearing. The court then entered a written order characterizing the parenting coordinator’s recommendations as a “reasonable temporary solution,” essentially adopting the parenting coordinator’s report. Is this error?
Yes - although there may be circumstances in which a parenting coordinator can appropriately assist a trial court in carrying out the court’s responsibilities, it is never appropriate for a parenting coordinator to act as a fact-finder or otherwise perform judicial functions
Can court delegate decision making authority to mediator?
Nope
HYPO: The trial court’s order appointed a mediator to create a time-sharing schedule. The order stated “the mediator shall have absolute authority” to establish the schedule. Is this error?
Yes - court can order you to mediate ts issues but it can’t confer authority to mediator to resolve the issue.
Can court delegate decision making authority to social investigator?
Nope
Can court order TS and say that it is subject to social investigator’s recommendations?
No - this is error bc the Court effectively and improperly delegated the court’s authority to the investigator.
What are the presumptions in FL concerning TS and parental responsibility?
Rebuttable presumption the equal TS is in BIC - and must prove by preponderance of evidence that equal TS is not in best interest
What is the primary consideration in creating or modifying a PP?
61.13(2)(d)(3)
BEST INTEREST
What is the burden for modifying parental responsibility, PP or TS?
61.13(2)(d)(3) - substantial, material, change in circumstances AND a determination that the modification is in the best interests of the child.
Must the court make findings for each factor in determine best interest under 61.13?
Unless TS is agreed upon by parties THE COURR MUST EVALUATE ALL FACTORS NOW
What is the definition of shared parental responsibility?
61.046(17)
“Shared parental responsibility means a court-ordered relationship in which both parents retain full parental rights and responsibilities with respect to their child and in which both parents confer with each other so that major decisions affecting the welfare of the child will be determined jointly.”
What is the 5th DCA’s view on how disputes should be resolved when parents have shared parental responsibility?
If the parents reach an impasse, the dispute should be presented to the court for resolution. In that event, the court must resolve the impasse applying the best interests of the child test.
What is the 3rd & 4th DCA’s view on how disputes should be resolved when parents have shared parental responsibility?
The parties are to confer on such matters and reach agreement thereon. If the parties reach an impasse, then the dispute is presented to the court for resolution. The test to be applied is the best interests of the child. See § 61.13(2)(b)(1)
When should court award shared parental responsibility?
61.13(2)(c)(2)
The court shall order that the parental responsibility for a minor child be shared by both parents UNLESS the court finds that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child
What creates a rebuttable presumption of detriment?
61.13(2)(c)(2)
Evidence that a parent has been convicted of a misdemeanor of the first degree or higher involving domestic violence, as defined in s. 741.28 and chapter 775, or meets the criteria of 39.806(1)(d), creates a rebuttable presumption of detriment to the child.
What happens if a rebuttable presumption arises due to evidence that parent has been convicted of a misdemeanor of 1st degree or high involving DV and it is but NOT rebutted?
If the presumption is not rebutted after the convicted parent is advised by the court that the presumption exists, shared parental responsibility, including time-sharing with the child, and decisions made regarding the child, may not be granted to the convicted parent.
If Court finds that shared parental would be detrimental, what may it do?
61.13(2)(c)(2)
It may order sole parental responsibility and make such arrangements for time-sharing as specified in the parenting plan as will best protect the child or abused spouse from further harm
Is a conviction necessary for court to consider dv or child abuse as evidence of detriment to child?
61.13(2)(c)(2)
No -
HYPO: in modification, court award sole parental decision making authority to Dad bc there was sufficient evidence to justify same based on Mom’s conduct but failed to make specific finding of detriment - is this error?
Yes - must have that specific finding.
61.13(2)(c)(2)
What is the definition of sole parental responsibility?
61.046(18) – “Sole parental responsibility” means a court-ordered relationship in which one parent makes decisions regarding the minor child.
When can court order sole parental responsibility?
Only when court finds that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child
HYPO: In 2004, Mother obtained a temporary injunction against domestic violence against Father after she alleged
15 he employed inappropriate corporal punishment with the four children. The temporary injunction allowed Father regular unsupervised time-sharing with the children. The injunction was dissolved in July 2006. Shortly thereafter, Mother began a campaign to alienate Father from the children including refusing to allow Father to see the children, refusing to encourage the children to participate in regularly scheduled time-sharing, threatening Father with new domestic violence injunctions if he attended the children’s events, reporting to the Department of Children & Family Services that Father was sexually abusing the children, filing various police reports alleging Father was involved with criminal activities, and reporting that Father should be investigated in connection with a high-profile case involving the disappearance of a young girl from Northport. Mother refused to participate with the court-appointed parenting coordinator and filed complaints with the state against the court-appointed psychologists and social workers who were preparing a custody evaluation. What should court do?
Award Dad sole parental responsibility. The record supports the conclusion that Mother illegitimately used every tactic available to a parent who is legitimately concerned about the safety of her children in an effort to gain a tactical advantage in this custody case.”
HYPO: Father was hindering the stability of the children and engaged in a pattern of direct and indirect resistance regarding passports, schooling and medical issues relating to the children. Can court award Mom sole parental here?
Yes, with respect to medical and educational aspects of the child.
HYPO: trial court awards Mom sole parental decision but fails to make a finding of detriment. Father files appeal but does not file for rehearing. What is the outcome on appeal?
Husband failed to preserve the issue via a motion for rehearing and did not argue fundamental error on appeal
Can a court order sole parental responsibility without addressing timesharing?
It has been found to be contrary to Florida Statutes § 61.13(2)(b)2.b which provided that a court may order sole parental responsibility, with or without visitation rights, to the other parent when it is in the best interest of the minor child.
Will a parent’s adultery impact consideration for timesharing with children?
No, unless adultery has a negative effect on the children
Is a party required to plead for sole parental responsibility?
Appellate courts have found that awarding sole parental responsibility when it had not requested such relief in his pleadings or at trial to be error
Can court on its own order sole parental responsibility?
Court cannot go beyond a party’s pleading and cannot do so without finding that shared parental would be detrimental
HYPO: Trial court entered an order requiring children to attend Social Bridges program to repair their relationship with Father. Then, it entered a subsequent order giving Father sole parental responsibility, among other things, to facilitate attendance at Social Bridges. Father had not asked for any of that relief in his pleadings. What argument should mom make on appeal?
Mother’s due process rights were violated when trial court granted relief not requested in pleadings
Can court order decisions to one parent over specific responsibilities for kids?
61.13(2)(c)(2)(a)
Yes - In ordering shared parental responsibility, the court may consider the expressed desires of the parents and may grant to one party the ultimate responsibility over specific aspects of the child’s welfare or may divide those responsibilities between the parties based on the best interests of the child. Areas of responsibility may include education, health care, and any other responsibilities that the court finds unique to a particular family
What is the difference between ultimate responsibility and sole responsibility?
Ultimate responsibility still requires the parents to confer and cooperate and attempt to reach a joint decision and the later requires no such communication. With ultimate responsibility, if a joint decision cannot be reached, one parent has the “final word.” In sole parental responsibility, the parent does not need to make the effort to attempt to reach a joint decision
What happened in De La Fe v De La Fe 2nd DCA 2021 case?
The trial court ordered that parental responsibility would be shared between the parties. However, the order allowed Former Wife to make the ultimate decision on any issue on which the parents do not agree. REVERSED bc this broad grant of ultimate decision-making authority was essentially sole parental responsibility and reversed the decision. Granting one parent “tie-breaking” authority is tantamount to awarding sole parental responsibility. A trial court may not grant one parent sole parental responsibility without making a specific finding that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child
What may serve as a justification for a court to award ultimate decision making authority to a parent?
A continuing pattern of hostility that reasonably would lead one to conclude that the parties would be unable to effectively work together for their child’s best interests.
Can a court award parent ultimate responsibility for religion?
Court should not interfere with either parent’s free exercises of his/her religious beliefs or the exposure of their beliefs to the children unless there is a clear, affirmative showing of harm to the children.
HYPO: Final judgment granted shared parental responsibility and further ordered “Parents are to consult with each other on long range and major decisions, and if no agreement can be reached, the primary residential parent will decide. Any concerns on appeal?
Yes - 4th DCA held this provision undermined the intent of shared parental responsibility by failing to delineate over which specific aspects of the child’s welfare Mother should have ultimate responsibility.
Can court grant ultimate responsibility over all general matters related to child?
No - has to order ultimate over specific area
Can court rule that Mother shall make ultimate decisions regarding “all major decisions affecting the welfare of the child.”?
NO - The court must specifically identify specific areas over which one parent will have final decision-making authority
The magistrate determined that shared parental responsibility was in the best interest of the child except when it comes to education and non-emergency health care. It further granted Father ultimate decision-making authority over “the major decisions concerning the child.” What is the issue here?
Granting ultimate over all major issues conflicts with award of shared.
Court awards shared parental responsibility between the parties, the trial court then awarded Former Wife ultimate decision-making authority over 18 separate areas of parental responsibility. Will finding of ultimate decision sustain appeal?
It did not in the 5th - 5th DCA held that it was an abuse of discretion and reversed because it impermissibly transforms its award of shared parenting into sole parenting to Former Wife, where there was no evidence in the record to support an award of sole parental responsibility. The court noted, however, that “the record might support a more limited award of ultimate responsibility on remand.” “A blanket, nonspecific award of ‘ultimate responsibility’ is contrary to the statutory concept of parental responsibility
What is necessary to uphold award of ultimate responsibility?
Competent substantial evidence as to granting of ultimate of specific area
Will a parent’s unilateral conduct to move kid in and out of schools without consulting other parent support an award of ultimate responsibility to other parent?
Yes - bc mom is preventing shared parental responsibility.
Can evidence of child’s failure to thrive, failure to gain weight coupled with serious acrimony and inability of the parents to agree on a school for the child support ultimate responsibility?
Yes
What happened in Posse v Sierra 5th DCA 2021 case?
The 5th DCA affirmed the trial court awarding ultimate decision-making to Father. The DCA reasoned that it was apparent from the findings in the final judgment that significant conflicts existed between the parties regarding parenting and that ultimate decision-making was in the best interest of the child. A specific finding included that Father was more likely to foster a better relationship with the other parent. Failure to include an express finding of detriment to the child in the final judgment is not error when the determination is consistent with many of the findings made in the final judgment.
Is a party required to plead for ultimate responsibility?
Yes. 4th DCA reversed a portion of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage finding the trial court erred in awarding Former Wife ultimate decision making authority over the child’s extracurricular activities, health care, and education when she only plead for ultimate decision making authority over the child’s extracurricular activities
What findings are necessary for parental responsibility?
61.13(3)(a)-(t) lists factors which the trial court shall consider in determining the best interests of the child for the purposes of creating a parenting plan. Although there is no statutory requirement that a trial court engage in a discussion as to each of the factors, a discussion of the relevant factors can be helpful in determining whether the trial court’s judgment is supported by competent, substantial evidence.
What is the definition of a timesharing schedule?
61.046(23)
“Time-sharing schedule” means a timetable that must be included in the parenting plan that specifies the time, including overnights and holidays, that a minor child will spend with each parent. The time-sharing schedule shall be:
-created and agreed upon by parties
-established by court
What must court find when awarding a ts schedule?
Must go through each statutory factor now
What happened in Glevis case 2nd DCA 2021
Trial court was reversed for failure to include requisite findings in its final judgment why it denied the Former Wife holiday time-sharing.
A DV injunction entered limiting Dad’s limited TS to supervised visits just before modification action. Then modified and said no unsupervised timesharing once certain conditions met. What are the issues on appeal
Lonsdale v Elbanna case 2nd DCA 2021
Because the modification order failed to state any substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances after entry of the injunction order, or that modifying the injunction order would be in the child’s best interests, the modification order was reversed
What happened in the Hiatt v Mathieu 4th DCA 2022 case?
After examining the best interest factors, the trial court ordered a long distance parenting plan with frequent travel that would encourage a continuing relationship with Father who lived in Belgium, expose the minor child to his paternal family members and Belgian culture, and not disrupt the school or routine of the child. The 4th DCA reversed the time-sharing plan in total as it found that the trial court erred in establishing a time-sharing schedule which relied on extensive international travel without considering the parties’ financial ability to afford such travel
Antunes v. Oliveira, (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) – Mother and Father entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement that included sanctions for failing to inform the other parent of international travel with the minor child. The sanctions were (1) that $10,000 be paid to the other parent and (2) that the violating parent would not be permitted to travel internationally with the child until the child reached the age of majority. What are issues with enforcement of these provisions on appeal?
Can enforce the sanction provision since it did not impact the best interest of the child but it could not enforce the no international travel provision since that would not be in best interest of child.
-The best interest of the child takes predominance over any agreement between the parents.
Can court order in FJ that TS is 50/50 when kid starts kindergarten in two years?
No- court may not engage in “prospective-based analysis” of a child’s best interests in the future. “Courts must determine a child’s best interests based on circumstances that exist at the final hearing
Can court order a long-distance time-sharing plan that also provided for a local time-sharing plan that would apply if one of the parties relocated in the future which caused the parties to reside within fifty (50) miles of each other?
Jennings v. Fredes, Fla. 1st DCA 2021
This is prospective based analysis. award of time-sharing based on Father’s potential relocation in the future rather than what is in the best interest of the child was a prospective-based analysis and therefore, reversible error
Can court order multiphase time-sharing schedule that increased Father’s time-sharing after the completion of certain events without judicial intervention?
T.A. v. A.S., (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) - such a time-sharing schedule was prospective-based and therefore, impermissible as it precluded a judicial review of the best interests of the child. In reversing the ruling, the 2nd DCA noted that Father retains the right to petition the court for a modification at any time
What happened in Harrell v. Cook (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)
trial court erred when it ordered a time-sharing schedule which would change in the future based solely on the anticipated future event of the child beginning Kindergarten because the lower court engaged in a prohibited prospective-based analysis.
Can court enforce a timesharing schedule that provides a parent will have reasonable or liberal access?
No - such provisions are not enforceable.
HYPO: A final judgment was entered dissolving the marriage, resolving most of the issues in the case, and establishing a parenting plan for two of the three children. As to the third child the order directed a re-unification Parenting Plan that was to be based on the report and recommendations of Dr. Stephen Bloomfield. The order did not determine a time-sharing schedule for that third child. What are issues on appeal?
Because the issue of time-sharing “is integrally related to other issues concerning the parties’ minor children” a final judgment was not a final, appealable order until a parenting plan was established for all of the parties’ children
What year did the term custody get replaced?
2008 custody was replaced with parenting plan and timesharing and neither primary residential parent
Why is it Florida’s public policy for both parent’s to have frequent and continuing contact with children?
To safeguard meaningful familial relationships.
When may a court restrict or limit a parent’s timesharing?
When it is necessary to protect the welfare of the child - the privilege of timesharing should never be denied either parent so long as he or she conducts themselves, while in the presence of such children, in a manner which will not adversely affect the morals or welfare of the kids.
HYPO: Former Wife claimed Former Husband is not a good role model for the children, that he has an anger management problem, has been violent, fails to return the children on time and fails to get their homework assignments completed. One child refuses visitation because she fears Former Husband. FW requests to limit his TS. What happens?
The 4th DCA held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting Former Husband’s time-sharing to “Wednesdays from 4:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. and every other weekend from Saturday at 9:00 a.m. until Sunday at 11:00 a.m.
HYPO: Court denies H any time with child without findings and W didn’t request that relief. Will this survive appeal?
Court must make findings supported by evidence to establish that denying his time-sharing was necessary to protect the child’s welfare.
Also, it is error for the trial court to award this relief when it was never requested it.
Can a court restrict a parent’s timesharing as a sanction?
No way - court cannot only restrict time when it is necessary to protect welfare of child.
Can a court order supervised timesharing?
While a trial court has the discretion to limit or restrict a parent’s time-sharing when necessary to protect the welfare of a child, an order requiring a parent’s time-sharing to be supervised will be reversed if there are no factual findings as to its necessity or evidence in the record to support the restriction.
E.M. v. E.G., 343 So. 3d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)
What is 61.45
In any proceeding involving a PP - court can order patent to not leave with kid or order a bond if competent substantial evidence to demonstrate one party is a risk of removing kid or concealing whereabouts
What can a court do when there is a concern that a parent may abscond with a child, particularly if the parent has done so before?
The court may condition time-sharing on the posting of a bond. However, the court must consider the party’s financial resources and the bond must be reasonable.
HYPO: Father was deported to Jamaica after his convictions for sexual battery and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon on Mother. Father had repeatedly threatened to kidnap the children. Jamaica is a nonsignatory to the Hague Convention of the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The FJ ordered Father to have time-sharing with the parties’ two children in Jamaica provided he post a $50,000 bond for each child prior to the time-sharing. What are issues on appeal?
presumption of detriment to the children due to convictions of misdemeanor battery involving domestic violence 61.13(2)(c)2
Court must consider difficulties that Mother would face due to Jamaica’s status as a non-Hague Convention country
HYPO: The Final Judgment granted Father liberal time-sharing, however then severely limited it to periods in which Father was personally able to be with the child, prohibiting Father from leaving the child with friends or relatives due to concern the child would witness acts of violence by Father’s family and friends. What are the issues on appeal?
Trial court must make specific findings relating to the frequency, nature, and severity of the violence as well as details concerning what role family members and friends played in the alleged behaviors prior to imposing such a severe limitation on Father’s time with his child.
Can court restrict TS based on parent’s “immoral” act?
Only if supported by an affirmative showing that the misconduct will have an adverse effect on the child
Can a trial court’s order prohibiting time-sharing at Father’s home due to Father having eight cats and children’s severe allergy and asthma?
Yes - the restriction is necessary to protect the welfare of the children
Is it error to order that Father could not drive automobile with minor child unless another adult with a driver’s license was present in the automobile where the condition was based on mere allegations concerning Father’s drinking habits?
No - need competent substantial evidence to demonstrate the restriction is necessary to protect welfare of children.
In a modification of PP action, are court’s required to give a parent “concrete steps” to restore lost time-sharing and return to the pre-modification status quo?
C.N. v. I.G.C., 316 So. 3d 287 (Fla. 2021) **
NO SUCH REQUIREMENT IS NECESSARY NOW. This was previously a split among the circuits but FL Supreme Court certified the conflict and resolved.
See also Spaulding v. Spaulding, 326 So. 3d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) & Piccinini v. Waxer, 321 So. 3d 943 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)
What was the Supreme Court’s rationale for deciding why court’s do not need to impose a concrete plan to restore a parent’s ts in a modification action to the the pre mod status quo?
C.N. v. I.G.C., 316 So. 3d 287 (Fla. 2021) **
(1) chapter 61 does not expressly impose a concrete steps requirement.
(2) court does not err for finally modifying a preexisting parenting plan without giving a parent concrete steps to restore any lost time-sharing.
(3) 61.13(3) sets forth its own specific requirements for modifying parenting plans, including time-sharing schedules.
What happened in the Spaulding case? Spaulding v. Spaulding, 326 So. 3d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
Trial court ordered Former Husband’s time-sharing to be supervised without providing a roadmap to achieve unsupervised time-sharing. The 2nd DCA affirmed based on C.N. v. I.G.C., 316 So. 3d 287 (Fla. 2021), finding that a final judgment modifying a preexisting parenting plan is not required to give a parent “concrete steps” to restore lost time-sharing and return to the pre-modification status quo.
What happened in Piccinini v. Waxer, 321 So. 3d 943 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)
Trial court entered an amended final judgment ordering Father’s time-sharing with his son supervised. The final judgment did not specify the steps necessary to obtain unsupervised time-sharing. Father appealed. The 5th DCA affirmed based on C.N. v. I.G.C., 316 So. 3d 287 (Fla. 2021).
What happened in Lofton v. Arthur, 332 So. 3d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)?
The trial court found that Father sexually abused his young child and thus, awarded sole parental responsibility and all time-sharing for the child to Mother. Further, no pathway to reunification was provided to Father in the trial court’s ruling. The 1st DCA upheld the trial court’s refusal to provide Father with a path to reunification, stating there is no such requirement that a trial court must give a parent concrete steps to restore lost time-sharing when time-sharing is suspended.
Can a parent refuse timesharing to another parent who failed to pay support?
No - 61.14(4)(a)
