Martindale-Hubbell
The National Advocates
The National Advocates
National Board of Trial Advocacy
The Florida Bar
Best Lawyers
Client Distinction Award
The National Advocates

Published on: | by

Emergency disputes involving children and sudden interstate moves often force courts to act quickly, sometimes before a full evidentiary record can develop. Florida law draws an important distinction between relocations that occur after a court order or pending action and those that happen beforehand. A recent ruling from a Florida court illustrates how that distinction affects a trial court’s authority and emphasizes that a child’s best interests must remain the guiding principle even in urgent circumstances. If you are dealing with an emergency relocation or return order, you should consult with a Miami family law attorney to understand how timing, procedure, and statutory limits can shape the outcome of your case. 

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the husband and wife were married and had three minor children together. During the marriage, the family encountered financial difficulties. In response to those challenges, the husband relocated with the children from Florida to Tennessee, where his parents co-owned a residence. After the move, the husband enrolled the children in school and claimed to have pursued new employment opportunities.

It is alleged that after the husband moved with the children, the wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in Miami-Dade County. Along with seeking dissolution, the wife requested emergency relief in the form of an order requiring the immediate return of the children to Florida. She asserted that the husband had unilaterally relocated the children without her consent.

Reportedly, a general magistrate reviewed the emergency request and recommended that the children be returned to Florida. The trial court ratified that recommendation and entered an emergency return order directing the husband to expeditiously return the children from Tennessee.

It is reported that the husband sought appellate review of the non-final order and moved for a stay, arguing that the trial court improperly relied on Florida’s child relocation statute and failed to conduct a best interests analysis before ordering the children’s return. He contended that enforcement of the order would cause harm while the appeal was pending.

Emergency Relocation Requests

On appeal, the court analyzed the stay request by examining both the likelihood of success on the merits and the potential harm if a stay were denied. Although courts generally defer to trial courts in temporary timesharing matters, that discretion must still operate within the bounds of established law, with the child’s best interests serving as the controlling consideration.

The court focused on the scope of Florida’s child relocation statute. By its plain language, the statute applies only when a parent changes the principal residence at the time of the last order establishing or modifying time sharing, or at the time a pending action is filed. Florida appellate courts have consistently interpreted this language to mean that the statute does not govern relocations that occur before the filing of a dissolution or paternity action and before any time sharing order exists.

Applying that interpretation, the court determined that the husband’s move occurred before the wife filed the dissolution action. As a result, the relocation statute did not apply, and the trial court could not rely on its provisions to justify an emergency return order. The court explained that this statutory limitation does not leave trial courts powerless. Courts retain authority under other provisions of Florida law to establish parenting plans and to address situations in which a child may have been removed to evade judicial oversight.

However, when the relocation statute does not apply, the court must still conduct a best interests analysis before ordering the return of children. The court acknowledged the time pressures faced by the trial court, particularly given congested dockets and the urgent nature of the request. Even so, the absence of a best interests determination rendered the emergency return order procedurally deficient.

To preserve the status quo during review and prevent potential harm, the court granted the stay of the return order. At the same time, recognizing the importance of prompt resolution in cases involving children, the court relinquished jurisdiction for a limited period. This allowed the trial court to convene a hearing, evaluate the relevant factors, and issue an order grounded in a proper best interests analysis.

Talk to a Knowledgeable Miami Child Custody Attorney

Emergency relocation disputes can escalate quickly and carry lasting consequences for parents and children alike. If you are seeking the return of children, opposing an emergency order, or navigating timesharing issues at the outset of a dissolution case, it is wise to speak with an attorney about your options. The knowledgeable Miami child custody attorneys at the Law Offices of Sandy T. Fox, P.A. assist clients throughout South Florida with complex custody, relocation, and emergency family law matters, and if you hire us, we work diligently to protect your rights. To discuss your situation with us, call 800-596-0579 or contact the firm online.

 

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Disputes over paternity testing present some of the most sensitive issues in family law, particularly when a child has already known one man as a father for years. Florida courts have repeatedly emphasized that genetic truth alone does not control these cases. Instead, the law prioritizes stability, emotional security, and the child’s best interests. A recent ruling from a Florida court reinforces strict limits on when courts may order genetic testing and clarifies the protections afforded to established legal fathers, even when the parents were never married. If you are facing a paternity challenge or defending an existing parental relationship, consulting with a Miami family law attorney is essential to safeguarding your rights and your child’s well-being.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the mother gave birth to a child in another state in 2018 while unmarried. Shortly after the birth, she and the putative legal father signed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity in compliance with the laws of the state of birth. Additionally, he was named as the father on the birth certificate. From the child’s birth forward, the he assumed the role of parent, providing emotional and financial support and acting as the child’s only father.

It is alleged that several years later, the mother, the child, and the putative legal father relocated to Florida. More than four years after the child’s birth, the putative biological father initiated a proceeding in Miami-Dade County seeking to establish paternity, obtain timesharing, child support, and related relief. He asserted that he had a sexual relationship with the mother before the child’s birth and claimed that the child resulted from that relationship. Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Paternity
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

Relocation disputes in family law place courts in the difficult position of balancing a parent’s right to move with the need to preserve a child’s stability and meaningful relationships. These cases often involve sharply conflicting testimony and require trial courts to make detailed credibility determinations under Florida’s relocation statute. A recent decision from a Florida court highlights the deference courts give to trial judges who carefully apply the statutory factors and base their rulings on competent evidence. If you are facing a potential relocation dispute, you should speak with a Miami family law attorney to understand how courts evaluate these cases and to protect your parental rights.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the mother and father are the parents of a minor child who resided in Tavernier, Florida, under an existing parenting arrangement established in a Miami-Dade County family court case. The father sought court approval to relocate the child from Tavernier to Cape Coral, Florida, asserting that the move would serve the child’s best interests and improve the family’s circumstances.

It is alleged that the father filed a formal request for relocation under Florida law, triggering the statutory requirement that the court evaluate specific factors related to the child’s welfare, the feasibility of preserving the relationship with the nonrelocating parent, and the motivations of each party. The mother opposed the relocation, disputing whether the proposed move would benefit the child and raising concerns about the impact on her timesharing and ongoing involvement. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Property disputes between former spouses often surface years after a divorce, especially when jointly owned real estate remains unsold and one party shoulders the financial burden alone. A recent decision from a Florida court highlights how courts address reimbursement claims in partition actions when a marital settlement agreement addresses some expenses but remains silent on others. The ruling clarifies the continuing obligations of tenants in common and reinforces the long-standing principles of Florida property law. If you are facing a dispute over jointly owned property after divorce, speaking with a Miami real estate litigation attorney can help you understand your rights and avoid costly missteps as your case develops.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff and defendant purchased a residence during their marriage, taking title subject to a mortgage. Following the dissolution of their marriage, the final judgment incorporated a marital settlement agreement drafted by the parties without counsel. The agreement stated that any gains from the eventual sale of the property would be divided, with the plaintiff receiving a larger percentage. The agreement also required the plaintiff to pay the mortgage and prohibited her from asking the defendant to contribute toward it.

It is alleged that after the divorce, the plaintiff attempted to sell the property but abandoned the effort due to unfavorable market conditions, leaving the mortgage balance exceeding the home’s value. Instead, the plaintiff retained possession and rented the property to third parties at various times over many years. During that period, the plaintiff paid all expenses associated with the property, including taxes, insurance, and maintenance, while the defendant made no financial contributions and received no rental income. Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Divorce
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

Paternity disputes often unfold at the crossroads of biology, legal status, and parental identity, and few issues in family law ignite more urgency than determining who has the right to claim fatherhood. A recent ruling from a Florida court shows how quickly these cases can turn, especially when one man is already recognized as the legal father, and another comes forward with DNA evidence. If you are involved in a paternity dispute, it is smart to talk to a Miami family law attorney to ensure your rights are protected as your case unfolds.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the appellee filed a petition to determine paternity shortly after the child’s second birthday, asserting that he was the legal and biological father. The birth certificate filed with the petition listed him as the father, and a Certificate of Live Birth included a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity signed by both the petitioner and the child’s mother, witnessed by two individuals. Both affirmed they were the natural parents and were unmarried at the time of the child’s birth.

It is alleged that 10 days later, the mother filed a verified motion disputing the appellee’s biological paternity and requesting DNA testing. The appellee responded, noting that testing had been scheduled but that the acknowledgment of paternity already established legal paternity under Florida law. Following a hearing, the court found him to be the legal father and declined to order genetic testing. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Few areas of family law carry weight equal to termination of parental rights, where the court’s decision can permanently redefine a family’s future. These cases often involve complex medical evidence, competing expert testimony, and deeply emotional circumstances, all of which demand intensive judicial scrutiny. A recent decision from a Florida court highlights how courts evaluate claims of newly discovered evidence after parental rights have been terminated, especially when parents attempt to raise new expert theories long after trial. If you are involved in a dependency or termination proceeding, it is advisable to talk to a Miami child custody attorney for guidance on how to protect your parental rights.

Case History

Allegedly, the Department of Children and Families opened two dependency cases after discovering multiple unexplained and severe injuries on infant twins. These injuries included rib fractures, extremity fractures, a skull fracture, a lacerated liver, and a bruised eye, many of which displayed different stages of healing. The half-brother, though uninjured, lived in the same home as the twins and the parents when the Department sheltered the children. The cases were later consolidated.

It is alleged that the trial court conducted a full bench trial involving extensive medical testimony, photographic evidence, hospital records, and expert opinions addressing whether the injuries resulted from nonaccidental trauma or a potential medical condition such as brittle bone disease or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. After evaluating the evidence, the trial court found that the injuries were indicative of nonaccidental trauma and terminated the parental rights of both parents to the twins and the father’s rights to the half-brother.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Florida courts regularly confront deeply emotional disputes involving parental discipline, allegations of domestic violence, and the limits of legal protection in contentious family dynamics. A recent Florida ruling highlights the importance of distinguishing between genuine domestic violence and permissible parental discipline, especially when a trial court’s findings do not align with the allegations in a petition. If you are involved in a domestic violence or family law dispute in South Florida, it is in your best interest to speak with a Miami family law attorney as soon as possible.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the mother sought a domestic violence injunction on behalf of a minor child following an incident that occurred on December 31, 2022. The parties, who divorced in 2018, shared responsibility for the child, and the incident arose shortly after the child returned from a ski trip with the father. The petition accused the father of punching the child, grabbing her hair, pulling her to the ground, and repeatedly striking her until she vomited, followed by additional kicking.

It is alleged that the court appointed a Guardian ad Litem to assist in assessing the child’s best interests. Testimony at the final hearing revealed a different account of the confrontation. The father testified that he discovered marijuana and related items in the child’s belongings and decided to impose discipline by taking her cellphone. The child resisted, and a struggle ensued during which she broke his finger. He denied the specific acts of violence alleged in the petition. A neighbor testified that the child appeared upset but showed no visible injuries and did not request police involvement. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Florida’s sweeping alimony reform continues to influence dissolution proceedings in significant and sometimes unexpected ways. One recent Florida decision demonstrates how the timing of legislative amendments can reshape the outcome of a long-term marriage’s financial resolution, even after the parties have completed a final hearing. If you or your spouse intends to end your marriage and you want clear guidance on how to protect your financial interests, you should speak with a Miami family law attorney as soon as possible.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the wife filed a petition in 2020 to dissolve the couple’s almost 20-year marriage. She sought permanent alimony. Both parties consented to a referral to a general magistrate, who conducted a hearing beginning in March 2023. The hearing concluded in late May 2023, but the magistrate did not issue any oral findings. The petition remained unresolved while the magistrate prepared a recommended order.

It is alleged that the magistrate issued a recommended order in August 2023 advising the circuit court to award permanent alimony to the wife. Before the circuit court adopted the recommendation, the husband moved to vacate the order, asserting that the 2023 amendments to section 61.08 eliminated permanent alimony in all dissolution petitions pending on July 1, 2023. The husband contended that because no final judgment had been entered before that date, the petition remained pending and the amended law applied. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In family law, financial calculations must strictly comply with statutory requirements to ensure fairness and accuracy. When trial courts base support obligations on gross income rather than net income, the result can significantly overstate a parent’s ability to pay. A recent decision from a Florida court highlights this principle, reversing a trial court’s child support determination that improperly relied on gross income figures. If you are involved in a child support dispute in Florida, a Miami family law attorney can help ensure that all income calculations follow the statutory guidelines set forth in Florida law.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the plaintiff and defendant were involved in dissolution proceedings. The plaintiff operated as a self-employed cosmetologist who rented a salon booth and bore responsibility for her supplies, tools, and licensing. Her federal income tax returns reflected that her reported business income was derived from gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses. In 2019, she reported gross annual receipts of $62,287 with business expenses totaling $21,408, leaving $40,879 in annual business income. Her 2020 return showed a similar pattern, with reported business income after expenses of $29,269. For 2021, her testimony and financial affidavit indicated a gross monthly income after expenses of approximately $3,078.

It is alleged that the trial court concluded that both parties earned roughly equal incomes of about $60,000 per year and therefore determined that neither party was entitled to child support. The plaintiff appealed several of these rulings, challenging the trial court’s treatment of her income and the resulting child support calculations.  She argued, in part, that this finding was inconsistent with the documentary evidence, which demonstrated a significantly lower net income after business expenses and allowable tax deductions Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In family law, property division often presents complex issues when unmarried parents or former partners jointly own real estate. When co-owners cannot agree on the sale or disposition of property, Florida law allows one party to seek partition through the courts. However, even when parties reach an agreement to sell the property privately, that arrangement must still comply with statutory requirements and judicial oversight. A recent decision from a Florida court demonstrates that when a trial court approves a private sale in a partition action, the final judgment must include a fixed and reasonable time frame for completion of the sale, subject to court approval. If the property is not sold within that time, the court must order a judicial sale in accordance with chapter 64 of the Florida Statutes. If you are involved in a dispute over jointly owned property, a Miami family law attorney can help ensure that your rights are protected during the partition process.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a paternity action that also involved issues of timesharing and jointly owned property. The defendant counterclaimed for partition of the real property that both parties owned together. The trial court conducted proceedings addressing both the parenting and property issues. Following those proceedings, the trial court entered a final judgment that established the parties’ timesharing arrangement and ordered partition of their jointly held property.

Allegedly, the trial court approved a plan for the parties to sell the property privately, rather than through a judicial sale. The record reflects that both parties voluntarily agreed to attempt a private sale and sought to avoid the costs and procedural requirements associated with a court-supervised sale. The judgment, however, did not include a specific time limit for the sale or provide for court involvement if the sale failed to occur within a reasonable period. Continue reading ›