When Court Orders Conflict

Florida family courts have wide latitude in formulating parenting plans and timesharing schedules. Nevertheless, the exercise of such latitude should not contradict other rulings. In the case we’re about to review, the court made conflicting rulings, and the case made its way to the appeals court.

Background of the case

In this case, the parents were divorced and raising a teenage girl. Mother and Father lived together in Hawaii but separated later on. At one point, the mother moved with the child from Hawaii to Key West, Florida with the father’s approval. Thereafter, the two parties formulated different timesharing schedules to manage their relationship with their daughter.

There came a time when the father wanted the child to go back with him to Hawaii. In relocation cases, courts apply the provisions of §61.13001. Under this statute, a court is required to establish whether the relocation will suit the best interests of the minor. The mother resisted the father’s wish for relocation, arguing that the daughter already had a settled life in Florida, and moving back was not in her best interests.

In this case, the judge rejected the father’s petition to relocate with the child since it was not in their best interests. However, the court ordered long-distance timesharing for the child in Hawaii.

The appeal

The matter went on appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal where issues surrounding the consistency of the ruling were considered.

The Court of Appeal determined that there was an internal contradiction within the judgment of the trial court. In one part of the decision, the court rejected the father’s application for relocation. On the other hand, the court accepted a parenting plan that had the effect of causing the child to be away in Hawaii.

According to the appeals court, these decisions were mutually exclusive and inconsistent. Based on this inconsistency, the appeals court agreed with certain parts of the judgment but set aside the long-distance timesharing plan. The case was remanded for further hearing regarding the most appropriate way to draft a parenting plan in the best interests of the child.

Key takeaways

In the aforementioned case, the best interests of the child standard reigned supreme. The child’s well-being is always the primary concern of the court when it comes to relocation matters. The trial court must prove that any particular solution will work for the child’s benefit.

In addition, parenting plans must be consistent from a logical point of view. If the trial court decided to deny relocation because it was not in the best interests of the child, it cannot order long-distance timesharing that, in effect, produced the same problem.

Talk to a Tampa, FL, Family Lawyer Today

Westchase Law, P.A., represents the interests of Tampa residents during their divorce. Call our Tampa family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin advocating on your behalf right away.

Source:

caselaw.findlaw.com/court/fl-district-court-of-appeal/115675453.html