Articles Posted in Custody/Time-Sharing

Published on: | by

Child custody court cases involve many elements. One vital aspect is determining what is in the best interest of the child, an issue that many parents might feel capable addressing on their own. However, family law cases are still civil litigation matters, in many cases complete with multiple procedural layers. In one recent case, a trial court’s decision to grant a grandmother’s custody-related motion survived because, according to the 5th District Court of Appeal, the motion complied with the rules of procedure, so the trial court was within proper bounds to hear it and rule on it.

The case involved the custody of a son born to a Florida woman. In 1999, she granted legal temporary custody of the infant boy to the child’s grandmother. More than a decade later, in 2010, the mother was drug-free, remarried, and caring for her younger children with her husband. The mother asked the court to grant her substantial visitation with the child. The grandmother asked that the court require supervision for the visits, and the court agreed.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A recent 4th District Court of Appeal ruling clarified the proper factors for determining if a parent has sufficiently abandoned his child to allow the courts to terminate his parental rights and gave a pair of grandparents’ effort to adopt their grandchild new life. The appeals court’s ruling explained that, in order to terminate a parent’s legal rights to his child, the law requires proof that the parent showed an intent to reject his parental obligations, but it does not necessarily require evidence that the parent willfully disregarded the child’s safety.

S. fathered a child in 2002. In 2010, the child’s mother died. The mother’s parents then went to court seeking to adopt the child. As part of that process, they also asked the court to terminate the father’s parental rights. As part of their termination request, the grandparents argued that the father had abandoned the child, both financially and emotionally.

The trial court held a hearing. At the hearing’s conclusion, the judge ruled that the grandparents had proven that the father indeed had financially and emotionally abandoned his child. Nevertheless, the judge refused to terminate the father’s rights and denied the grandparents’ adoption petition. So, what went wrong? According to the trial court, the law also required the grandparents to prove that the father “willfully disregarded” the child’s safety, and they did not offer evidence on this point.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Psychological and physical evaluations can be important tools for courts as they analyze a parent’s fitness. The law, however, also maintains several hurdles on the permissibility of such examinations because of their invasive nature. The case before a court must implicate the parent’s mental or physical condition, and the parent must be on notice of the potential of an evaluation before the court may order such a step. In a recent case from southwest Florida, a mother’s appeal allowed her to escape such an evaluation when the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that her case did not meet either of the required criteria.

As part of one couple’s divorce, the court awarded primary residential custody to the mother and issued a time-sharing order. At a hearing in late October 2013, the court discovered that the father had not seen his daughter in more than four months. The father expressed his desire to see his child, but he also stated that he did not want to force his daughter to visit him.

The trial court assumed that if the mother was supportive of maintaining the child’s relationship with her father, the visits would be occurring in accordance with the time-sharing order. As a result, the court ordered the mother to undergo a psychological evaluation, but it made no findings of fact as part of the order. The mother appealed.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Crafting parenting and time-sharing plans are challenging enough under ordinary circumstances. When the child whose custody must be resolved also has special needs, the decisions become even more difficult. However, when these cases go to court, the law imposes the same analysis as all other parenting plan and time-sharing matters. Namely, the court must decide based upon the best interest of the child. The law does not require the involvement of guardians ad litem or expert witnesses, as one recent Third District Court of Appeal ruling highlighted.

A Florida man and woman, both of whom were deaf, had a son who was also deaf. The mother and son lived in Broward County, and the mother enrolled the boy at a school in Pompano Beach with both deaf and non-impaired students. The father, who lived in St. John’s County, sought to modify the time-sharing plan so that the child could attend the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind, located in St. Augustine near the father’s home. The school offered education entirely in sign language and also allowed deaf students like the son to participate in extracurricular activities and athletics.

At the end of the first day of trial, the judge expressed that he “needed” to appoint a guardian ad litem. However, since the court could not find a guardian fluent in sign language, no appointment was made. Ultimately, the trial judge sided with the father, ordering that the father have the child during the school year, with the mother receiving custody during the summers, and the parents would alternate weekends with the boy.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A South American mother’s attempt to relocate from Brazil to Florida became more complicated after the Third District Court of Appeal determined that an international convention regarding child custody applied to her case and required her to return with her two daughters to Brazil so that Brazilian courts could sort out the family’s custody dispute. While the mother had sole physical custody of the daughters, the mother and father had a joint right to determine the country in which the children would reside.

After the couple married in Ecuador in 2001, they moved to Brazil, where they had two daughters. The couple eventually split, and a Brazilian court entered a custody and visitation order. The order gave the mother sole custody and the father certain visitation rights. In December 2012, the mother took the girls and relocated to Miami.

The father went back to the Brazilian courts to seek the return of his daughters. He also filed a request in a Miami trial court for the same relief. The Miami court denied the father’s petition, concluding that he had only a right of access to the children and lacked the “rights of custody” needed to force the children’s return.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A recent ruling by the Third District Court of Appeal sided against a Native American mother in her attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of the Miccosukee Tribal Court to resolve a custody dispute regarding two children she shared with a man who was not Native American. The decision has substantial impact for South Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe, which is situated in the Everglades just to the west of Miami and Fort Lauderdale.

While the issue of custody of children who are part Native American has been prominently litigated recently, including the “Baby Veronica” case which went all the way to the US Supreme Court, the dispute between a mother who was a member of the Miccosukee Tribe, and a father who was not Native American, involved a different aspect of the law. This case did not involve resolving custody based upon the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, as was the case in the “Baby Veronica” matter, but rather the the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.

The case began when a custody dispute cropped up between the parents and the mother filed for custody in the Miccosukee Tribal Court. The court held a hearing and awarded custody to the mother. The father then filed in the 11th Circuit Court in Miami. The mother sought to shut down the father’s case, arguing that the tribal court had resolved the matter and that, under the terms of the UCCJEA, the Florida court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

When going to court for a determination of timesharing, it is important to understand what the judge can and cannot do. Florida’s law regarding the establishment of a timesharing plan for a divorcing couple’s children is based upon a public policy that strongly favors giving a child “frequent and continuing contact” with each parent unless evidence exists showing that this contact poses a risk of harm to the welfare of the child. Absent this danger to the welfare of the child, courts cannot cut off one parent. This rule is what led the 4th District Court of Appeal to reject a recent timesharing plan created by a Broward County trial court.

The case involved the child of R.L. and E.D. R.L. (the mother) filed for divorce and sought primary physical custody of the couple’s only child. The mother requested that the father receive only supervised visits with the child, claiming a concern about emotional and physical abuse by the father. At a hearing on timesharing, the mother told a trial court magistrate judge that the father had not been in Florida in more than a half-decade and knew nothing about the child’s education, activities or medical condition. The father did not show up for that hearing.

The magistrate judge awarded the mother 100% timesharing of the child. The magistrate judge’s recommendation concluded that the father did not know the child and the child did not know who the father was, so it would be inappropriate for the father to have any timesharing. The trial judge approved the magistrate’s recommendation.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A father’s desired move with his two sons from Florida to New Jersey fell flat because, although he persuaded a trial court judge to OK the relocation, the trial court order failed to make findings that the move benefited the children. The 5th District Court of Appeal reversed the ruling, stating that the evidence in the case demonstrated a move in the best interest of the father, not the children.

After the husband and wife separated early in 2013, a trial court entered an order establishing the pair’s equal time-sharing of their two children. A few months later, the husband sought the court’s permission to relocate, with the children, to New Jersey, so that he could continue pursuing his pharmacy degree. The husband stated that the move was in the children’s best interest because he could provide the children with an excellent home and education in New Jersey, and that the completion of his pharmacy degree would greatly increase his earning potential and ability to provide for the children.

Both parents agreed to allow the court consider a custodial evaluation report prepared by a psychologist. The doctor advised against moving the children away from their Brevard County home, where they’d lived their entire lives. Nevertheless, the trial court sided with the husband and approved the move. The court found that, despite the extraordinarily contentious nature of the couple’s divorce, the husband sought the relocation “in good faith.” The court did not find, however, that the move would be in the best interest of the children.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

An ex-husband successfully secured primary physical custody of the four children he shared with his ex-wife, but failed to persuade a trial court to order his ex-wife to pay child support on all four children. That’s because a governmental agency already paid a monthly stipend for the fourth child and, since the trial court’s custody modification order gave that stipend to the husband, a Florida appeals court determined that it was not improper to refrain from making the ex-wife pay child support on that child.

J.L.B. and his wife, S.J.B., divorced in 2008. Initially following the divorce, the wife held primary physical custody of the children. Following an incident in which the Florida Department of Children and Families removed the couple’s children from the wife’s home, the husband asked an Orange County court to give him sole custody of the children or, at least, make him the primary physical custodian. The court agreed and ordered that the husband receive majority time-sharing within a joint custody arrangement.

As part of this ruling, the court also assessed a child support obligation to the wife. The husband promptly appealed the child support portion of the court’s ruling. The husband argued that the trial made an error by calculating the wife’s support obligation based on three children, when the couple shared custody of four children.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A recent court of appeals decision put a screeching halt to a mother’s attempt to relocate her daughter from central Florida to Indiana. The 5th District Court of Appeal’s ruling affirmed a lower court’s decision that the move was not in the daughter’s best interests, concluding that the mother was motivated by a desire to maintain physical distance between the daughter and the father, and to block contact between the two.

This couple divorced in 2008 in California, and the court approved a marital settlement agreement that included a 50-50 time-sharing arrangement for the couple’s one daughter. The mother and the daughter soon moved to central Florida. In an effort to be closer to his daughter, the father moved to Orlando in the summer of 2010.

Just three months later, the mother abruptly relocated her family, including the daughter, to Indiana, where the mother’s husband had received a job offer. The father asked the court to order the return of his daughter. After a failed telephonic mediation, the mother petitioned the court to approve the relocation to Indiana.
Continue reading ›