Articles Posted in Custody/Time-Sharing

Published on: | by

In Florida’s child welfare system, the rights of caregivers to participate in dependency proceedings are governed by specific statutory provisions. When a caregiver seeks to oppose a change in a child’s placement, they must meet statutory criteria to obtain party status. This was demonstrated in a recent Florida decision in which the court quashed a trial court order granting caregivers limited party status because the statutory prerequisites were not met. If you are a caregiver or relative involved in a child placement dispute, consult a knowledgeable Miami family law attorney to understand your rights and obligations.

History of the Case

It is reported that a child, K.J., was removed from parental custody shortly after birth due to the mother’s substance abuse and placed with non-relative caregivers. Over nine months later, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) moved to transfer custody of K.J. to a maternal aunt in order to reunify K.J. with a sibling. The caregivers opposed the transfer and sought limited party status under section 39.522(3)(c)4.a., Florida Statutes.

It is alleged that the trial court granted the caregivers limited party status to contest the proposed change in placement. The court reasoned that because the caregivers had maintained custody for at least nine months and were willing to adopt, they were entitled to participate in the proceedings to determine the child’s best interests. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Parenting plans and timesharing arrangements can be modified when circumstances change, but challenging a signed settlement agreement requires clear evidence of unfairness or improper conduct. In a recent Florida case, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of a request to set aside a parenting-related settlement agreement, emphasizing the high bar for undoing such agreements and the deference given to trial court discretion in matters involving child custody. If you are involved in a custody dispute and have questions about how you can protect your parental rights, it is prudent to speak to a Miami child custody attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the mother and father entered into a settlement agreement regarding parenting issues, including timesharing and school designation, as part of their divorce proceedings. Reportedly, the father later sought to set aside or modify the agreement, claiming that the terms were unfair or no longer served the best interests of the child.

It is alleged that the trial court reviewed the motion and determined that no sufficient basis existed to set aside the agreement. The trial court also declined to modify the parenting plan or change the designated school, finding that the agreement remained in the child’s best interests. The father challenged the trial court’s rulings and requested a new determination based on the alleged inequity of the original agreement and the trial court’s refusal to change the parenting plan.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Interstate child custody disputes can be among the most challenging legal battles, requiring courts to navigate complex jurisdictional laws while ensuring fairness to both parents. For example, if a parent does not have notice of key communications in a case, any ruling related to said communications may be unjust, as discussed in a recent Florida decision. If you are involved in a multi-state custody case, understanding your legal rights is crucial, and consulting an experienced Florida family law attorney can make all the difference.

History of the Case

It is reported that the parties were married in Tennessee in 2017 and had a child together. The father later spent significant time in Key West, Florida, while the mother and the child primarily resided in Tennessee. In December 2023, the mother filed for divorce in Tennessee, stating that the child lived with her in Knoxville and requesting joint custody. Two days later, the father filed for divorce in Florida, also seeking joint custody and asserting that the child lived with him in Key West.

It is alleged that both parties filed motions to dismiss the other’s case, each arguing that their respective state had jurisdiction over the custody matter. The Tennessee court held a hearing and determined that it needed to communicate with the Florida court to establish which state had jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). Continue reading ›

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, 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

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, courts making timesharing decisions must base their determinations on the child’s best interests, supported by substantial evidence. When a court’s decision relies on speculative or unsupported assumptions, it risks reversal. A recent Florida decision illustrates the need for competent evidence when ordering significant changes to a child’s living arrangement. If you are involved in a custody dispute, it is wise to consult a Miami child custody attorney to ensure your rights are safeguarded.

Case Setting and History

It is reported that the mother and father disputed custody over their daughter, born in 2017, with the mother moving to Florida with the child shortly after birth. Allegedly, in 2021, the father filed for paternity and timesharing rights in Florida, seeking to establish a legal relationship with the child. Reportedly, the mother counterclaimed, seeking sole custody and alleging the father had engaged in abusive behavior, resulting in a domestic violence injunction.

Allegedly, the court initially ordered shared parental responsibility and temporary timesharing, permitting the father visitation during school breaks. The case ultimately proceeded to trial in 2023. It is reported that at trial, witnesses testified to issues related to the father’s alcohol use, lack of a driver’s license, and financial instability. The guardian ad litem recommended that the child remain in Florida with the mother, citing concerns about the father’s ability to serve as the primary caregiver. Nonetheless, the court granted the father majority timesharing in Michigan, contingent on him securing certain improvements in his living situation. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Under Florida law, child custody cases involving multiple states are governed by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), which aims to prevent jurisdictional conflicts and ensure due process. Recently, a Florida court issued an opinion highlighting the importance of procedural fairness when a trial court relinquishes jurisdiction to another state. If you are involved in an interstate custody dispute, it is prudent to consult a Miami child custody attorney to ensure your rights are protected.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff, an aunt who was awarded temporary custody of her minor niece, filed a Petition for Temporary Custody in Florida. Allegedly, the child’s parents, both of whom were incarcerated, consented to the arrangement, and the Florida court awarded the aunt temporary custody. It is reported that the child’s maternal grandmother, residing in North Carolina, had previously taken the child to her home, although she did not formally appear at the custody hearing.

Reportedly, following the Florida court’s temporary custody order, the aunt traveled to North Carolina to retrieve the child, only to find that the grandmother had obtained an ex parte emergency custody order from a North Carolina court. Fearing that the grandmother might leave the country with the child, the aunt filed an emergency motion in Florida for the return of the child. However, the Florida trial court sua sponte issued an order relinquishing jurisdiction to North Carolina without holding a hearing, concluding that North Carolina was a more appropriate forum under the UCCJEA. The aunt appealed, asserting that she was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before the trial court could relinquish jurisdiction. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida, the court’s main focus in custody proceedings is what is in the child’s best interest. In some instances, acting in the best interest of a child requires a court to issue temporary orders in response to exigent circumstances. The courts cannot lawfully do so without certain findings, though, as discussed in a recent Florida opinion issued in a custody case. If you have concerns about protecting your parental rights, it is wise to confer with a Miami child custody lawyer.

Factual History and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the mother and the father shared parental responsibility, as established by a final judgment of paternity. However, the father filed a motion requesting temporary sole custody of the child, claiming that the mother violated court orders by preventing him from seeing the child and by failing to bring the child for a required hospital evaluation after the child threatened self-harm. Despite the father not filing a formal petition to modify custody, the trial court held a hearing and orally determined that the child’s well-being required immediate transfer of custody to the father.

It is reported that the court expressed that placing the child with the father was necessary to protect the child from further psychological and emotional harm. The mother objected, arguing that the father’s failure to file a petition for modification and the absence of a finding of substantial change in circumstances made the court’s order improper. Nonetheless, the trial court believed it had the authority to sua sponte change custody due to exigent circumstances and entered the order. The mother then appealed. Continue reading ›