Monday, May 20, 2019

Family law appeals, requested relief, shared parental responsibility, and proscuitto and nasturtium pizza

 It is well settled that courts cannot grant relief not requested in the pleadings, and to do so is both an abuse of discretion and reversible error. Worthington v. Worthington, 123 So. 3d 1189, 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (reversing and remanding where court granted relief that was not requested); Abbott v. Abbott, 98 So. 3d 616, 617-18 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (reversing and remanding trial court’s award of shared parental responsibility where such relief was not pleaded or raised at the hearing). Nor should a court grant such relief without proper notice to the parties.  Sinton v. Sinton, 749 So. 2d 532, 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Doing so raises due process concerns. Sabine v. Sabine, 834 So. 2d 959, 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Cortina v. Lorie, 95 So. 3d 467, 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Randall v. Randall, 948 So. 2d 71, 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).   If the relief granted is not requested in the pleadings, it can be reversible error.
Moreover, Florida Statutes 61.13(2)(c)(2) requires that a trial court must order shared parental responsibility “unless the court finds that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child.” See also Smith v. Smith, 971 So. 2d 191, 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Numerous Florida courts of appeal agree that blanket awards that give one parent complete control over decisions does not give effect to the Statute. See, e.g., Markham v. Markham, 485 So. 2d 1299, 1300 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (“to lump all decision-making authority in one party for all matters, undermines the mandate of the law that decisions be "jointly made," unless there is a finding as required pursuant to section 61.13(2)(b)2”); Wheeler v. Wheeler, 501 So. 2d 729, 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (following Markham to reverse and remand blanket award of ultimate responsibility); Kuharcik v. Kuharcik, 629 So. 2d 224, 225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (reversing order giving mother ultimate decision-making authority over all areas if parties can’t agree because it “undermines the intent of the child custody statute regarding shared parental responsibility”); Cranney v. Cranney, 206 So. 3d 162, 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (reversing award of ultimate decision-making authority to mother where court found both parents were capable of parenting the child even though father was less able to cooperate); McClure v. Beck, 212 So. 3d 396, 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (reversing open-ended award of ultimate decision-making authority to father over major decisions for trial court to specify which aspects over which he has authority). To make such an award of sole parental responsibility, there must be a finding that shared responsibility would be detrimental to the child. See id.; see also Maslow v. Edwards, 886 So. 2d 1027, 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (holding court's failure to make a specific finding that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to child before awarding sole parental responsibility to mother necessitated remand of paternity action); Aranda v. Padilla, 216 So. 3d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (reversing and remanding where final judgment does not contain finding that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child).
If an order contains no finding that shared parental responsibility is detrimental to the child, the contrary is presumed by statute, and that order may be reversible on appeal.  The appellate court in Ziruolo v. Ziruolo, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D986 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 28, 2017), reversed and remanded an order providing one parent as the ultimate decision maker that did not provide justification for doing so. 

The Law Lady.  For more info about us, click here.  To be added to our email circulation with MUCH, MUCH more law, click here and specify whether you wish to be added to our CRIMINAL, CIVIL, or  FEDERAL Recent Decisions of Interest.

Tuesday, January 1, 2019

Asylum injunctions and lamb with garlic and rosemary roasted on a bed of leaks and heirloom tomatoes

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday refused to allow President Donald Trump to begin implementing a new policy that allows asylum claims only by immigrants entering the country through points of entry." "The case is Trump v. East Bay Sanctuary." More.

The Law Lady.  For more info about us, click here.  To be added to our email circulation with MUCH, MUCH more law, click here and specify whether you wish to be added to our CRIMINAL, CIVIL, or  FEDERAL Recent Decisions of Interest.

Originally posted by Debra Cassens Weiss, Dec. 21, 2018, ABA Journal Weekly