Fort Lauderdale Divorce Lawyer Blog
Parenting disputes frequently raise concerns about conflict between households, particularly when new spouses or partners become involved in a child’s life. Florida courts are tasked with protecting children’s best interests, but that responsibility does not grant unlimited authority to regulate the conduct of individuals who are not parties to the case. A recent Florida ruling clarifies the procedural and jurisdictional limits on a trial court’s power to restrict non-parties through parenting plan modifications. If you are navigating a post-dissolution dispute involving timesharing, parental authority, or alleged third-party interference, consulting a Miami family law attorney can help you understand where judicial authority begins and ends.
Facts and Procedural History
Allegedly, the husband and wife divorced in 2016. One minor child was born during the marriage. Several years later, disputes arose after the wife remarried, and tensions developed between the husband and the wife’s current husband.
It is alleged that in 2019, the husband filed a supplemental petition for modification, accusing the wife’s current husband of physically attacking him during a public school event involving the child. The husband sought restrictions preventing the wife from bringing her current husband to activities and exchanges involving the child.
Reportedly, the case proceeded to an evidentiary hearing in 2024, during which the husband testified about a prior altercation at a school graduation and described ongoing hostility during child exchanges. The husband introduced video and audio recordings of these encounters and referenced a previously issued temporary injunction, although no permanent injunction had ever been entered against the current spouse.
It is reported that the trial court entered a supplemental final judgment finding a material, substantial, and unanticipated change in circumstances based on the current spouse’s alleged conduct. The court prohibited the current spouse, a non-party to the case, from attending the child’s public school, extracurricular, and religious events when the husband provided advance notice of attendance. The court also barred the current spouse from attending exchanges and medical appointments. The wife moved for rehearing, arguing that the court lacked authority to restrict a non-party without notice or an opportunity to be heard, but the trial court denied the motion. The wife then appealed.
Trial Court Authority in Child Custody Cases
On appeal, the central issue was whether the trial court had jurisdiction and authority to restrict the conduct of a non-party who received no notice and was not before the court. The court concluded that the challenged restriction operated as an injunction in substance, regardless of its label.
Florida law requires that injunctions bind only parties to the action, and courts lack jurisdiction to issue orders that interfere with the rights of non-parties. Because the current husband was neither joined as a party nor provided notice or an opportunity to be heard, the restriction violated fundamental procedural due process.
The court rejected the argument that the restriction could be justified solely on best-interest grounds. While parenting plans may regulate parents’ conduct, they cannot be used as a substitute for injunctive relief against third parties. The court also distinguished prior cases relied upon by the trial court, noting that those decisions did not squarely address jurisdictional authority over non-parties or the procedural prerequisites for injunctive relief.
The court further observed that the husband had previously sought, and failed to obtain, a permanent injunction against the current spouse through proper legal channels. The modification proceeding could not serve as an alternative means of securing relief that was unavailable through an action for an injunction. As a result, the court reversed the portion of the supplemental final judgment restricting the current spouse from attending the child’s public events and remanded with instructions to strike that provision, while affirming all other aspects of the judgment.
Discuss Parenting Plan Modifications With an Experienced Miami Child Custody Attorney
When trial courts exceed their authority in child custody cases, correction may be necessary. If you have questions about how you can protect your parental rights in a divorce action, it is wise to talk to an attorney. The experienced Miami child custody attorneys at the Law Offices of Sandy T. Fox, P.A. assist clients throughout South Florida with parenting plan modifications, and if we represent you, we will advocate aggressively on your behalf. To discuss your situation, call 800-596-0579 or contact the firm online.