Martindale-Hubbell
The National Advocates
The National Advocates
National Board of Trial Advocacy
The Florida Bar
Best Lawyers
Client Distinction Award
The National Advocates

Published on: | by

Parents involved in international custody disputes will often seek the return of their child via a Hague petition. While such petitions can be useful tools, they are not foolproof, as exceptions can apply that prevent the return of a child, as demonstrated in a recent Florida decision in which the court found that the mother had met the legal burden for exceptions under the Hague Convention. If you are involved in an international custody dispute, it is in your best interest to consult an experienced Miami divorce attorney regarding your options.

Facts of the Case and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the parents, both Peruvian citizens, were previously married in Peru and later divorced in 2015. Their divorce decree granted them joint custody of their child, though the child primarily resided with the mother. In September 2021, the mother traveled with the child to Florida with the father’s written consent for a temporary stay, but she did not return on the agreed date. More than a year later, the father initiated proceedings under the Hague Convention, seeking the child’s return to Peru.

Reportedly, the father argued that the mother had wrongfully retained the child in the United States in violation of his custodial rights. The mother defended against the petition, invoking two exceptions under the Hague Convention: (1) the “well-settled” child exception, which applies when a child has adapted to a new environment after more than one year of wrongful retention, and (2) the “mature child objection” exception, which allows the court discretion to deny return if the child is sufficiently mature to express a preference. The trial court denied the father’s petition, ruling that the child had become well-settled in Florida and had expressed a clear objection to returning to Peru. The father appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida, the division of property in divorce cases must be supported by legally sufficient findings that justify any deviations from an equal division of marital liabilities and assets. This was emphasized in a recent Florida decision in which the court held that a trial court erred in assigning a marital loan solely to one spouse without adequate justification. If you are contemplating seeking a divorce, it is in your best interest to consult a Miami divorce attorney about how you can protect your financial interests.

History of the Case

It is reported that the wife filed for divorce after a short-term marriage lasting under four years. Allegedly, four months before filing, she took out a $20,000 loan in her name alone, asserting that the funds were used to consolidate marital debt, cover pregnancy-related expenses, and repay a personal loan from a friend. She argued that these financial obligations were incurred during the marriage and should be treated as marital liabilities.

Reportedly, the husband denied knowledge of the loan and contended that he should not be responsible for any portion of it. He admitted, however, that he did not contribute to the payment of pregnancy-related expenses or inquire into how those obligations were covered. The trial court ruled in favor of the former husband, assigning full responsibility for the loan to the wife, citing the short duration of the marriage and her decision to obtain the loan in her name without informing her spouse. The wife appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida, the rules of procedure grant parties the broad discretion to withdraw their cases, including dissolution proceedings. A recent Florida decision reaffirmed this principle, holding that a spouse who voluntarily dismisses a petition for dissolution of marriage retains the right to do so, provided there are no pending counterclaims. If you are involved in a dissolution proceeding, it is important to understand your rights and obligations under Florida law and you should consult an experienced Miami divorce attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is reported that the wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, seeking both the termination of the marital relationship and equal timesharing with the couple’s two minor children. She also submitted a suggested marital settlement agreement, providing equitable distribution and reflecting her requested timesharing arrangement.

Reportedly, the husband responded by filing an answer, waiver, and a request for a copy of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Shortly thereafter, the wife voluntarily dismissed her petition for dissolution. The husband objected to the dismissal, asserting that he had already complied with the monetary terms established in the suggested marital settlement agreement in expectation of a final judgment. He subsequently amended his objection to include additional factual allegations and filed a motion for default against the wife. Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Divorce
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

In Florida, post-dissolution proceedings involving child support and timesharing modifications must proceed in a manner similar to initial pleadings. This means that modifications culminate in a final order, and nonfinal decisions are not immediately appealable unless authorized explicitly by appellate rules. This was illustrated by a recent Florida decision that resulted in the dismissal of an appeal due to a lack of jurisdiction. If you are involved in a child support or timesharing dispute, it is crucial to understand the steps you must take to protect your rights, and you should consult an experienced Miami child custody attorney as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the appellant, the wife, sought to modify timesharing and child support following a final judgment of dissolution. Allegedly, the wife filed an initial supplemental petition for modification in October 2017 and later filed an amended supplemental petition in March 2022. Both petitions included requests for modifications to timesharing and child support.

Reportedly, after a hearing in December 2022, the trial court denied the former wife’s amended supplemental petition as it pertained to timesharing. Subsequently, in November 2023, the former wife filed a motion for a case management conference, listing various issues she believed remained unresolved, including child support. A short time later, the court issued two orders. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida, child support and timesharing modifications are governed by the principle that changes must reflect the child’s best interests and be supported by evidence of substantial, material, and unanticipated changes in circumstances. As discussed in a recent Florida decision issued in a child support action, the evidentiary burdens in such cases are imposed squarely on the parents seeking such modifications. If you are involved in a dispute regarding child support or timesharing, it is essential to evaluate your options, and you should talk to a Miami child support attorney promptly.

Facts of the Case and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the father appealed a trial court’s order granting the mother’s petition for modification of child support and denying his counter-petition for modification of timesharing. Allegedly, the parties divorced in 2017, and the father was ordered to pay $331.50 per month in child support. In 2021, the mother filed a supplemental petition, asserting that the father’s income had substantially increased, the child’s needs had grown, and the father had not fully exercised his timesharing rights. The father denied these allegations and filed a counter-petition seeking equal timesharing. He argued that his circumstances had materially changed because he had purchased a home with a bedroom for the child and remarried, providing additional support for the child’s care.

Reportedly, a general magistrate reviewed the evidence, including financial affidavits and testimony from both parties. The magistrate determined that the mother demonstrated substantial and material changes in circumstances justifying an increase in child support, while the father failed to meet the burden required for timesharing modification. The magistrate’s recommendations were adopted by the trial court, leading to an increase in the father’s child support obligation to $506.22 per month. The father’s exceptions to the magistrate’s report were denied, and he appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Discovery is a key component of Florida divorces, as it allows parties to determine one another’s financial status, which in turn allows the courts to determine their rights and obligations. Such disclosure may not be necessary in cases involving prenuptial or antenuptial agreements, however, as discussed in a recent Florida divorce action. If you are contemplating a divorce and are subject to such an agreement, it is important to understand its enforceability, and you should talk to a Miami divorce attorney as soon as possible.

Case Setting and History

It is reported that the wife and husband executed an antenuptial agreement in 2001, which explicitly stated that the parties agreed not to disclose their financial conditions or the nature and character of their estates and property. Allegedly, the agreement was intended to serve as a settlement framework in the event of a dissolution of marriage. In 2023, the wife filed a petition for divorce and asserted that the terms of the antenuptial agreement exempted her from mandatory financial disclosure.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

While most parents want what is best for their child, they do not always agree with their co-parent as to what is in their child’s best interests, and custody disputes can quickly become contentious. When the courts are asked to resolve custody actions, they are expected to do so based on competent and reliable evidence. As such, if they fail to do so and make their decisions based on speculations, there may be grounds for challenging their decisions, as demonstrated in a recent opinion issued in a Florida custody case. If you are engaged in a custody dispute, it is important to understand the standards for evidence and judicial decision-making, and you should consult a Miami child custody attorney as soon as possible.

Case Setting and History

It is reported that the mother and father were engaged in a paternity and custody dispute involving their young child, who had lived in Florida since infancy. Allegedly, the father sought majority timesharing and proposed relocating the child to Michigan, where he resided. The trial court’s decision to award the father majority timesharing was reportedly based on the assumption that the father’s living conditions and circumstances would improve in the future.

Reportedly, the trial court relied heavily on speculative testimony regarding the father’s potential to establish a stable home environment and financial stability. Additionally, the trial court minimized concerns regarding the father’s substance use and lack of a driver’s license despite contrary evidence presented by the mother. The mother appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court’s reliance on hypothetical improvements and insufficient findings violated the child’s best interests. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida, parental relocation disputes require courts to evaluate whether a proposed move aligns with the child’s best interests, as outlined in state statutes. The burden of proving a relocation would benefit a child is placed on the party requesting the move. As discussed in a recent Florida ruling issued in a relocation case, if the party seeking to relocate fails to meet this burden, their request will be denied. If you are involved in a custody or relocation dispute, it is critical to understand your rights and responsibilities, and you should talk to a Miami child custody attorney as soon as possible.

Case Setting and History

It is reported that the mother filed a petition seeking to relocate with her minor child to another state. Allegedly, the mother argued that the move would improve her quality of life and benefit the child, citing factors such as educational opportunities and access to extended family. The trial court conducted a four-day evidentiary hearing and ultimately denied the petition, finding that the proposed relocation did not serve the child’s best interests.

Reportedly, the trial court’s order analyzed the statutory factors set forth in section 61.13001 of the Florida Statutes, which govern relocation petitions. Among other findings, the trial court emphasized that the mother failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that the move would enhance the child’s well-being. The court also noted that the child’s relationship with the father would be significantly disrupted by the move. The mother appealed the denial of her petition.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Under Florida law, alimony determinations must be supported by specific factual findings regarding both parties’ financial circumstances. This means, in part, that courts must carefully assess the needs of the receiving spouse and the ability of the paying spouse to meet those needs. The importance of adhering to statutory guidelines and making detailed findings in alimony awards was highlighted by a recent Florida decision. If you are involved in a divorce case with alimony disputes, consulting a Miami family law attorney can help protect your interests and ensure proper adjudication.

Case Setting and History

It is reported that the husband and the wife divorced. The parties’ dissolution of marriage proceeding included disputes over the amount and duration of alimony. The trial court awarded the wife permanent alimony based on the parties’ gross incomes and retroactive alimony for a specific period.

It is alleged that the husband appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to make the required specific findings regarding the parties’ net incomes, improperly based the alimony award on gross rather than net incomes, and awarded retroactive alimony without determining the former wife’s need for support or the husband’s ability to pay during the retroactive period.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Under Florida law, issues related to the enforcement of temporary support orders during divorce proceedings must adhere to the principles of finality and jurisdiction. Courts must carefully navigate procedural rules to ensure compliance with interlocutory and final judgments, avoiding errors that could render orders unenforceable. The importance of correctly applying the merger doctrine and procedural rules in family law cases was illustrated in a recent Florida divorce action. If you are involved in a divorce or support enforcement matter, consulting a Miami family law attorney can help protect your rights and ensure compliance with the law.

Facts of the Case and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the husband and wife divorced. The trial court subsequently issued temporary support orders requiring the husband to pay monthly expenses for the wife and their minor child. When the husband failed to comply, the court entered multiple contempt orders and money judgments. After the partial final judgment was entered, the husband moved to vacate the prior support and enforcement orders, arguing they were extinguished by the merger doctrine. The trial court agreed, holding that the temporary support orders merged into the partial final judgment and became unenforceable. The wife then appealed.

The Merger Doctrine in Family Law Cases

On appeal, the wife argued that the trial court erred by applying the merger doctrine to extinguish the temporary support orders and judgments, as the partial final judgment explicitly reserved jurisdiction over support and financial matters. The court agreed with the wife, holding that the merger doctrine did not apply to the unresolved issues of support and enforcement. Continue reading ›