Articles Posted in Custody/Time-Sharing

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 ›

Published on: | by

In a groundbreaking decision earlier this month, a sharply divided Florida Supreme Court concluded that a woman who donated her eggs to her lesbian partner so that the couple could have, and raise, a child together possesses a fundamental constitutional right to parent the child. In the process, the court declared unconstitutional a statute that created an automatic waiver of the parental rights of all reproductive material donors, concluding that the statute, as applied to the lesbian egg donor, violated her Due Process rights.

The case involved the custody of the daughter of a lesbian couple. In 2003, the couple set about to have a child. They used one partner’s egg, but the other partner carried and delivered the child. The couple gave birth to the daughter in January 2004. Two years later, though, the relationship failed and the birth mother cut off all contact in December 2007.

The other partner, known in the court documents as “T.M.H.,” filed a legal action to establish her parental rights to the daughter. The birth mother challenged the action, arguing that Florida law afforded T.M.H. no parental rights and that, by signing an “informed consent” form, T.M.H. had surrendered all parental rights. The trial court ruled in favor of the birth mother, but the 5th District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the Florida Statute governing donated reproductive material was unconstitutional as applied to T.M.H.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Just three short months after Miami Heat guard Dwyane Wade’s divorce became final, a Florida appeals court was again called upon to enter a decision in the half-decade long legal contest. The 3d District Court of Appeal overturned a trial court’s order requiring the NBA star’s ex-wife to undergo a mental evaluation and also removed the trial court judge from the case, citing his denial of the “most basic right of due process” to the ex-wife, Siohvaughn Funches.

Many of the facts of Wade’s ill-fated marriage are well-known by now. Wade and Funches married in 2002, had two sons, and filed for divorce in 2007. The divorce proceeding turned into a marathon affair, becoming final only three months ago. In the property settlement, Wade agreed to pay Funches $25,000 in alimony, with another $10,000 in travel and living expenses. The basketball star also agreed to pay Funches’ mortgage and gave her the use of four cars.

This outcome apparently displeased the ex-wife, as Funches took to the streets of her hometown of Chicago. Funches stages a public protest claiming that the divorce had left her “on the streets.” Wade’s legal team fired back, returning to court to argue that Funches’ protest demonstrated her mental instability and dangerousness and requested that the court order a psychological evaluation of the woman and reduce her contact with the boys. Trial court judge Antonio Marin ordered the evaluation.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A recent case, involving a Pennsylvania man and his biological child living in Florida, demonstrated the significant differences that sometimes exist between science and the law. A Florida appeals court both denied the biological father’s effort to litigate his custody dispute in his home state, and foreclosed his efforts to make a claim anywhere regarding custody of the child. The man’s resounding defeat resulted from several shortcomings, including his flouting custody orders and, in particular, his lack of legal relationship to the child because the mother was married to another man at the time of the child’s birth.

The case revolved around a child born to a couple in 2004. The child’s birth certificate listed the husband as the father; however, he was not the father. The child was the product of the mother’s relationship with another man. The child resided with the maternal grandmother from birth. The mother died in 2008, still married to the husband. After the mother’s death, the grandmother sought custody and the husband consented. At this point, the father sought to intervene and asked the court to declare him the child’s father and award him custody. The trial court concluded that the husband had severed his parental rights by abandoning the child, declared the biological father the father and awarded him custody.

Following a reversal of the ruling by the 1st District Court of Appeal, the grandmother re-obtained legal custody. The father, however, refused to hand over the child, and the child remained in his physical custody for a 12 month period during which he had no legal rights regarding the child.
Continue reading ›

Contact Information
19790 W Dixie Hwy #412
Miami, FL 33180
Toll Free: 800.596.0579Phone: 305.932.6542Fax: 305.932.6453

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2026, Sandy T. Fox, P.A.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design