Fort Lauderdale Divorce Lawyer Blog
A parenting hearing can reshape a child’s home, school, and relationship with each parent. Those changes require fair notice, a meaningful opportunity to participate, and evidence supporting the child’s best interests. A recent Florida decision ordered a new trial after a hearing proceeded without the mother or her attorney and resulted in a dramatic change to the child’s living arrangements. The ruling illustrates how scheduling problems and inadequate evidence can undermine a parenting judgment. If you are facing a disputed parenting plan or relocation request, a Miami family law attorney can help protect your opportunity to present your case.
Facts of the Case
It is reported that the father petitioned to establish paternity, shared parental responsibility, timesharing, and child support. The child had lived full-time with the mother, and the father had never exercised overnight timesharing. The mother later filed a counterpetition seeking relocation, long-distance timesharing, and related relief.
Allegedly, 40 days before the scheduled one-hour final hearing, the mother requested a continuance. Her reasons included counsel’s preplanned travel, incomplete court-ordered mediation, and insufficient hearing time. This was her first continuance request. Her attorney promptly sought a hearing on the motion, but the magistrate’s office said none was available before trial.
Reportedly, the continuance motion was set for the same time as the final hearing. The mother and counsel attempted to appear remotely, but remote participation was not permitted. The magistrate denied the continuance and immediately proceeded with the father as the only witness. The magistrate ruled in favor of the father, and the mother appealed.
The Right to Be Heard in Custody Proceedings
On appeal, the court emphasized the full sequence of events. The motion was timely and was not a delaying tactic. By postponing a ruling until trial began, the magistrate left the mother without a meaningful chance to learn the result and arrange to proceed if the request was denied. The majority also found no demonstrated prejudice to the father from a brief continuance.
The mother consequently could not testify, offer evidence, question the father, or address the statutory best-interest factors. The court held that the combined circumstances created manifest injustice. This was not a general ruling that attorney travel requires a continuance or that parties may choose remote participation without permission.
The father initially asked at the hearing for equal timesharing. After the magistrate discussed the difficulties of equal timesharing while the mother lived in Texas, he sought to take the child full-time. The recommended order gave him 289 overnights annually, required the child’s return to Florida, and restricted the mother’s timesharing to Florida. The circuit court ratified it.
The majority found that this substantial-majority arrangement had not been fairly presented in the father’s pleadings. Because the mother was absent, the expanded request could not be tried by consent.
The court determined that the supporting evidence was also insufficient. The father lacked a bed for the child, was unsure about schooling, and did not know whether his employer would allow the necessary pickup schedule. The recommended order acknowledged missing testimony on several best-interest factors. Thus, the court reversed and ordered a new trial on all issues in the petition and counterpetition.
Discuss Your Concerns With a Miami Custody Attorney
If you need advice about parenting plans, timesharing, or a disputed relocation, Miami family law attorney Sandy T. Fox can review your circumstances and explain the issues that need to be presented to the court. Contact the Law Offices of Sandy T. Fox, P.A., at 800-596-0579 to schedule a consultation.