Articles Posted in Time sharing

Published on:

by

When it comes time for the court to determine and establish a time sharing and parenting plan between the biological parents of a minor child, the court applies the “best interests of the child” test in making its consideration.

There are numerous factors that the court will look at in making its determination as to the best interests of the child.  All of these various factors are set forth in Florida Statute 61.13.  You can review the criteria under the statute and examine the nonexclusive list of things the judge will be looking at when you go to court.

What happens in a case, however, when only one biological parent is competing with a relative, for example, a grandparent, for custody and time sharing with a minor child?  How will the court look at a situation like this? Will the judge apply the same standards regarding the best interests of the child in structuring a time sharing or custody arrangement of the child?

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Never a truer statement has been made then “the buck stops here”, when dealing with time sharing issues in a divorce case.  What this means is that the judge must have the final word in all issues which affect minor children, and he does not have the legal authorization to delegate that responsibility to any third party, including a therapist.

The animosity between parents can lead to difficult situations with their minor children.  When a parent’s anger adversely affects the minor children, that particular parent may end up with restricted contact with their minor children.  When one parent suffers from anxiety or depression, their behavior may have adverse effects on their children.  In either one of these scenarios, a therapist might be called in to intervene, and make recommendations to the court as to future prospects for time sharing, if a parents rights have been temporarily restricted.

In Grigsby v. Grigsby, 39 So 3rd 453 (Florida 2nd DCA 2010), the mother suffered a suspension of her time sharing with her children.  The trial court failed to delineate what was required of the mother in order to reestablish her time sharing.   As a result of the trial court’s failure to delineate, the decision was reversed on appeal.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Extreme caution should be exercised when a party in a dissolution of marriage action seeks temporary emergency relief without giving notice to the other party.   This is what is commonly known as ex parte relief, which is seeking relief without providing any notice whatsoever to the other side.  These types of proceedings are at substantial risk of reversal based upon a denial of due process of law.

There is a basic premise under the law that states that absent an emergency, failure to give notice to the other party is tantamount to a denial of due process of law.   The appellate courts throughout the State of Florida routinely reverse temporary custody orders entered without notice to the other party, or with insufficient notice, or with insufficient opportunity to be heard.  Putting it a different way, there are at least two sides to every story, and both parties should be afforded the opportunity to present their position to a judge, prior to the Court making any adjustments regarding a previously existing time-sharing schedule between the parents.

The former husband, Basem Yunis, ran afoul of these basic principles when dealing with an ex parte motion seeking emergency relief.  You can read about the facts in his case in Suleiman v. Yunis, 168 Southern 3rd 319 (Florida 5th DCA 2015).

Continue reading
Published on:

by

An adoption subsidy paid by the State of Florida to the parents of special needs children may not be considered as a credit against the spouse’s child support obligation.

The Legislature has made adoption assistance, including financial aid, available to prospective adoptive parents who adopt a child with special needs through the state’s foster care system.

The purpose of the adoption subsidy is to encourage individuals to adopt special-needs children by assisting the parents with the extra care a special needs child requires.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

It is understandable that some spouses who are divorcing are not necessarily in the mindset to cooperate with one another. After all, fighting and disagreements have likely played a role in the decision to end their marriage. However, refusal to come to an agreement regarding one or more issues in a divorce can cause serious delays and can increase the cost of a divorce.

Before a court will grant your divorce, you and your spouse must settle numerous issues including:

  • Property and debt division;
  • Child support;
  • Time-sharing and visitation;
  • Parenting plans;
  • Alimony.

If any one of those issues cannot be settled out of court, the divorce can be delayed as the court will have to decide for you. You and your spouse will have to present evidence to support your arguments for how you want to resolve the issue at trial and the judge will rule on the matter.

A recent divorce case demonstrates just how much a divorce case can be affected by adversarial disputes instead of cooperation. After 25 years of marriage, the wife of the founder of Cancer Treatment Centers for America filed for divorce. The filing occurred in 2009 and the case is still dragging on due to several disagreements regarding a prenuptial agreement, custody, and division of their millions of dollars in assets. The case has involved numerous hearings, appellate hearings, changes of lawyers, contempt orders, and other complications, and is now finally going to trial over asset and property division. In the meantime, both spouses have likely spent an enormous amount of money, stress, and time dealing with the divorce proceedings and have been unable to remarry since their marriage is not yet dissolved after more than six years. Continue reading

Published on:

by

Traditionally, couples who were facing divorce with children regularly heard terms such as “sole custody” or “visitation.” While these ideas often still apply in many situations, Florida law has been updated in recent years to change the way custody arrangements work.

Original Terms

Prior to 2008, one parent was often known as the “custodial parent” and the other as the “non-custodial parent.” Other terms used included “primary residential parent” and “secondary residential parent,” which meant the children lived with one parent most of the time and visited the other periodically. The timeline and frequency of such visits were set out in a “visitation plan.”

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Incredible as it sounds, the Massachusetts legislature is considering such a bill. The proposal should not be considered in a vacuum however, as it applies only in specific situations, when minor children are involved.

The proposal was designed to promote and protect the best interests of the minor children, whose parents are in the midst of a divorce.

1395110_crying_boy.jpg

Robert LeClair, a local Massachusetts lawmaker proposed the bill, after going through a bitter divorce himself. The specifics of the bill would be to prohibit the parent in possession of the marital home, from engaging in any type of sexual relationship with a new partner during the parties separation, and prior to the divorce proceedings concluding.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Under Florida law, minor children are not permitted to move more than 50 miles away from their current residence, unless written consent is provided by a parent, or by court order.

An interesting situation arises when a minor child wishes to attend a private school in a out-of-state location. The obvious question becomes whether or not the attendance at this new school would be considered a relocation, thereby requiring the parent to comply with Florida Statute 61.13001.

The answer to that question was recently addressed in the case of Blakely v Blakely, 38 Florida Law Weekly D2170c. In that case the court deemed the attendance of the child at an out-of-state high school to be an educational decision for the child and not one of relocation, therefore the relocation statute in Florida was not applicable.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Moving from the state of Florida with minor children without permission can have serious consequences. The rules for relocation from the state of Florida are found in Florida Statutes 61.13001.

If the “stay behind” parent consents to relocation, make sure that consent is given in writing. stock-photo-18805289-boarding-pass.jpg If consent is not given, relocation must be initiated by the parent seeking to relocate, by filing a petition in the Circuit Court that currently has jurisdiction over the parties.

The petition must include a substantial amount of information, including the complete address of the intended new residence; telephone numbers, the reason for the requested relocation, and if for employment purposes, should include a copy of the employment offer.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Time haring with minor children in Florida is keeping up with technology. As a matter of fact, there is a specific statute in Florida that deals precisely with this issue.

Florida Statute 61.13003 is titled as “Court ordered electronic communication between a parent and a child.

This type of communication can be ordered by the court when the situation is appropriate. Some of the court ordered factors that are considered are whether it would be in the best interests of the child; whether or not the electronic equipment is readily available and affordable to the parties involved; and any history of drug use or domestic violence involved in the case.

Continue reading