March 19, 2025
by SmartSites
In a child relocation case, the parent with substantial time-sharing and the parent who does not have substantial time-sharing are both required to seek court permission before relocating. In Brooks v. Brooks the trial court ordered the Father to file a petition to relocate pursuant to section 61.13001 when he moved from Sarasota to Hallandale Beach. The Florida Court of Appeal affirmed this decision. The Florida Court of Appeal reasoned that when Chapter 61 was rewritten in 2008, the legislature moved away from terms such as “primary residential parent” and “nonresidential parent.” Instead, the legislature adopted terminology such as “time-sharing”. Section 61.13001(3) requires a parent seeking relocation to file a petition to relocate. Relocation is defined by section 61.13001(1)(e) as ‘a change in the location of the principal residence of a parent…from his or her principal place of residence at the time of the last order establishing or modifying time-sharing, or at the time of filing the pending action to establish or modify time-sharing.” Since this definition excludes any reference to the relocating parent being the primary residential parent, the lower court ordered the Father to file a relocation petition before moving.
The Florida Court of Appeal reasoned that even though the title of the child relocation statute, section 61.13001 should be considered along with the statutory text, that title, “Parental relocation with a child” must be read in conjunction with and does not override the text of the statute. And the text in multiple places indicates that even a noncustodial parent with visitation rights would have to file a petition to relocate. Therefore, the Second District Court of Appeal in Brooks v. Brooks disagreed with the First District Court of Appeal in Raulerson v. Wright, 60 So. 3d 487,489 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) and held that the Father, even as a noncustodial parent, was required to seek court permission before changing his residence, and it was not an abuse of discretion to compel him to do so after the fact.
To speak with a child relocation lawyer in Boynton Beach, Florida, contact Matthew Lane & Associates, P.A. at (561) 363-3400.
Continue reading
March 19, 2025
by SmartSites
In child custody and visitation cases, a parent’s request to the trial court to have the other parent psychologically evaluated requires a showing that: (i) the request for the evaluation is related to a matter that is in controversy, and (ii) that there is good cause for the examination.
In a recently decided case captioned Reno v. Reno, the Former Husband filed an Emergency Motion for Mental Examination and Supervised Timesharing pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360 and rule 12.360. The Florida Court of Appeal stated that the party requesting the examination bears the burden of proof. Seeking custody does not place the other party’s mental condition in controversy. The other party’s mental condition must directly involve a material element in the case. Allegations of mental illness must be verified by the parent seeking the evaluation, and must show that the parent is having emotional issues that could substantially impact upon his or her ability to parent a child.
The focus of the inquiry is not on good parenting or bad parenting. The focus is on deeper concern with the parent’s emotional health. Good cause is substantiated by proof that a parent has not met the needs of the children. The party requesting the evaluation must show that the alleged emotional illness places a child at risk of abandonment, abuse, or neglect. The requesting party must show that a parent’s emotional condition would jeopardize the children’s wellbeing.
Continue reading
March 19, 2025
by SmartSites
A case involving unmarried parents was recently decided by the Florida Court of Appeals. In a case captioned Booth v. Hicks, the Mother appealed a final judgment that was rendered against her by the trial court. In this judgment, the lower court awarded the Father sole custody and parental responsibility of the parties’ child. The parties’ child lived primarily with the Mother. The Father petitioned the court to establish a parenting plan that awarded the Mother timesharing during the week and the Father timesharing on weekends. The Mother provided the trial court with her own parenting plan in which she sought sole parental responsibility.
The trial court held a final hearing in this matter. The Mother failed to appear at the final hearing. The Father presented testimony and two of his relatives also testified. The trial court awarded the Father sole custody and sole parental responsibility based upon the fact that the Mother did not appear at the hearing. The Mother filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied by the trial court.
The Florida Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s time-sharing decision. The Court ruled that a trial court may only make an award of custody and parental responsibility based upon the best interests of a child. The Court of Appeal went on to state that custody should not be denied to a parent as long that parent, while in the presence of the child, conducts herself or himself in a manner that will not adversely affect the child. The Court of Appeal pointed out that the complete denial of time-sharing is almost never proper. The Court ruled that the best interests of the child overrides a parent’s failure to appear at a hearing. A parties’ actions in a court proceeding do not override a child’s right to have his or her custody determination decided based on his or her best interests. A child may not be punished for a parent’s misconduct. Custody is based upon the child’s best interests, not upon one of the parent’s default.
Continue reading
March 19, 2025
by SmartSites
A child custody and visitation case was recently decided by the Florida Court of Appeal in a case captioned Frye v. Cuomo. In this case, the parties were married for nine-years. They had two minor children at the time of the divorce. The mother filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, citing the father’s history of alcohol abuse. As a condition to exercise timesharing, the trial court required the father to completely abstain from alcohol, and ordered the father to submit to blood alcohol testing at the beginning of every visitation and at the end of every visitation. The trial court also awarded the mother the authority to demand immediate and periodic testing of the father at any time, and required the Father to pay for the cost of the testing device.
In reaching its decision, the Florida Court of Appeal pointed out that restrictions on timesharing are usually disfavored, unless they are necessary to protect the children. Parents have a constitutionally protected right to have a meaningful relationship with their children. Custody and visitation should not be denied to either parent as long as they conduct themselves in a manner that does not adversely affect the children when they are in the presence of the children. Restrictions on custody and visitation must be in the best interests of the children before they will be upheld on appeal.
In this time-sharing case, because of the father’s proven history of substance abuse, the Florida Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s ruling and ordered the father to completely abstain from alcohol, and required him to submit to blood alcohol content testing before and after each visitation. The Court overruled the trial court’s requirement that the Father submit to periodic testing at the mother’s request. Finally, the Court apportioned the costs associated with the substance abuse testing device between the parties.
Continue reading
March 19, 2025
by SmartSites
Child Custody and Visitation for Same-Sex Couples in Florida was recently discussed by the Florida Court of Appeal in a case captioned Springer v. Springer. In Springer v. Springer a child was born to a biological mother while she was in a same-sex relationship. Her partner asked the Court to recognize a parenting plan that both parties entered into. The parties started their relationship in the State of Ohio. The Biological Mother became pregnant by a donor’s sperm. The Former Partner had no biological connection to the child. The parties entered into a timesharing agreement which contained a provision that the parties were to share timesharing and parental responsibility. The parties separated after they moved to Florida. The parties did not marry and the child was not adopted by the Former Partner. The Former Partner sought time-sharing and parental responsibility of the child.
The Florida Court of Appeal ruled that a Child Custody and Visitation co-parenting agreement between a nonparent and a biological parent is unenforceable under Florida Law. The Court ruled that the time-sharing and parental responsibility provisions contained in the Florida Statutes only apply to parents, not to nonparents. A nonparent in a same-sex relationship has no standing to assert parental responsibility or time-sharing rights. A birth mother’s rights that are protected by the Constitution. These Constitutional rights prevail over a partner’s claims, when that partner is not the biological or legal parent. A partner who does not have a biological or legal connection to a child does not have Child Custody and Visitation rights under Florida law.
To speak with a same-sex divorce attorney in West Palm Beach, Florida, contact Matthew Lane & Associates, P.A. at (561) 363-3400.
Continue reading
March 19, 2025
by SmartSites
Holiday child custody and visitation was recently discussed by the Florida Court of Appeal in a case captioned Glevis v. Glevis. In this case, the Husband and Wife met in a foreign country. After they dated for a few years, the Husband brought the Wife to the United States. The parties got married in the United States. The Wife became pregnant, and the couple’s relationship deteriorated. The Husband moved out of their home. Eventually, the parties got back together. The Husband found a job in Tampa, Florida, but the Wife refused to move to Tampa. The Husband then found a home for the family in Bonita Springs. After an argument, the Husband moved out of the marital home. A dissolution of marriage proceeding was held. The trial court awarded the Husband exclusive time-sharing with the baby. Subsequently, the Wife was awarded supervised time-sharing.
When the trial court created a parenting plan for the parties, it did not include holiday custody and visitation with the child. The Florida Court of Appeal ruled that when a court awards time-sharing to both parties, rotating holiday time-sharing is required unless there is a factual basis that justifies the denial of holiday time-sharing. Since the trial court in Glevis v. Glevis denied the Wife holiday time-sharing without making the required factual findings, the trial court’s decision was reversed.
Additionally, in Glevis v. Glevis, the Magistrate recommended that the parties have shared parental responsibility, and awarded the Husband ultimate decision making authority. Florida statutes require that in making determinations regarding parental responsibility, the best interests of the children govern. In Florida, trial courts are directed to order shared parental responsibility unless there is a showing that it would be detrimental to the best interests of the parties’ children. With shared parental responsibility, major decisions involving the children’s welfare are made after both parents have the opportunity to confer and reach an agreement. When courts determine that it would be detrimental for the children to have shared parental responsibility, courts may award sole parental responsibility.
Continue reading
March 19, 2025
by SmartSites
Durational alimony terminates when either of the parties dies or the recipient of alimony remarries.
In a unique case captioned Dills v. Perez the parties’ marital settlement agreement contained a provision that stated that the former husband’s obligation to pay durational alimony to the former wife was non-modifiable. At the time that the parties got divorced, they entered into a marital settlement agreement that was incorporated into their final judgment of dissolution of marriage.
The parties’ marital settlement agreement required the former husband to pay durational alimony to the former wife for a period of forty-eight (48) months. Additionally, the parties’ marital settlement agreement contained a provision that the former husband’s obligation to pay durational alimony was non-modifiable. Although the parties’ marital settlement agreement contained a provision that the former husband’s alimony obligation would not terminate upon the former husband’s death, it did not specifically discuss the effect that remarriage would have on the former husband’s durational alimony obligation.
Continue reading
Posted in:
Alimony
Tagged:
Alimony
March 18, 2025
by SmartSites
In a division of property and assets case captioned Roth v. Roth the Wife appealed the Final Judgment of divorce. The parties were married for twenty-nine years. At the time of the hearing, the Wife was fifty-eight and the Husband was seventy-four. Both of the parties worked in the automotive industry. The Husband was the primary income earner during the marriage. The Wife was a stay-at-home parent after the parties’ son was born, and returned to the workforce when their son was in high school.
During the marriage, the Husband was in a car accident and suffered injuries. The Husband and Wife filed suit and recovered $28,154.64. The Wife withdrew approximately $13,000.00 of the settlement proceeds the day before she left the parties’ marital home. The Wife testified that she used these funds to pay for her attorney’s fees and her living expenses. The Husband testified that he needed to use these funds to have an operation for an injury to his neck, because he could not afford it otherwise.
The Florida Court of Appeal ruled that in a personal injury case, a damage award is distributed in the following manner. First, payments for pain and suffering, disability, loss of consortium, and loss of ability to lead a normal life are considered to be nonmarital property. Payments for these loses belonged exclusively to the Husband. Second, economic damages which will occur subsequent to the termination of the marriage, including lost future wages and future medical expenses are considered to be nonmarital and belong exclusively to the Husband.
Continue reading
March 18, 2025
by SmartSites
A same-sex divorce case involving alimony, palimony and an oral cohabitation agreement was recently decided by the Florida Court of Appeal. The case was captioned Armao v. McKenney. During the course of the parties’ relationship, the parties entered into an oral cohabitation agreement. The parties agreed that they would live together, work together, take care of each other emotionally and financially, provide for each other, and be a couple. They characterized their relationship as being: “just like a married couple.” They combined their assets, investments, income, and inheritances. They participated in a blessing ceremony. They held themselves out as a couple during their 46 year relationship.
The Defendant earned approximately $500,000.00 during the course of the relationship. He gave all his paychecks to the Plaintiff. The Defendant owned a home before the parties met. When the Defendant sold his home, he gave the proceeds to the Plaintiff. When the Defendant’s mother died, he gave his inheritance to the Plaintiff. In the Counterclaim, the Defendant sought half of the balances in all of the accounts held by the Plaintiff, representing one half of the parties’ combined assets.
The Florida Court of Appeal held that in a same-sex divorce, couples can be found to have entered into enforceable contracts that establish their rights and responsibilities toward each other. These agreements must be based upon lawful and valid consideration which is separate and apart from any agreement involving sexual relations. There is no requirement that these agreements be in writing.
Continue reading
March 18, 2025
by SmartSites
Imputation for purposes of alimony was recently decided by the Florida Court of Appeal in a case captioned Cura v. Cura. In Cura v. Cura, the Husband filed an appeal challenging an order awarding temporary alimony and child support. After a seventeen year marriage, the husband and wife separated. When the parties separated they were living at the husband’s mother’s home in Palm Beach County, Florida. The wife obtained her own residence and filed for divorce. She sought an award of temporary alimony and child support. During the course of the marriage, the parties enjoyed a lavish lifestyle. Immediately before the filing for divorce, the parties sold a valuable piece of property. The husband then sold a second piece of property. Finally, the husband took out a large mortgage on a third piece of property. The husband also sold a number of investments.
At a hearing, the Husband was unable to locate the whereabouts of any of the revenues from the aforementioned transactions. The husband claimed that he had no access to funds and was unable to obtain employment. The wife alleged that the Husband continued to enjoy a lavish lifestyle. She also contended that the Husband received gifts from his mother and was voluntarily unemployed.
In making an award of alimony and child support, the Florida Court of Appeal ruled that a trial court may impute income to the husband. Imputing income requires people who are able to earn an income to do so. Unless the payor is mentally or physically incapacitated, earnings are to be imputed to an underemployed or unemployed person if such underemployment or unemployment is voluntary. If there is not sufficient evidence to decide the amount to impute, the spouse is presumed to have the capacity to earn the amount that that spouse historically earned. The trial court is to consider the payor’s job prospects, qualifications, recent work history, and the prevailing level of earnings in the community. Additionally, the court is to consider relevant economic factors.
Continue reading
