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

In Florida, child support and timesharing modifications are governed by the principle that changes must reflect the child’s best interests and be supported by evidence of substantial, material, and unanticipated changes in circumstances. As discussed in a recent Florida decision issued in a child support action, the evidentiary burdens in such cases are imposed squarely on the parents seeking such modifications. If you are involved in a dispute regarding child support or timesharing, it is essential to evaluate your options, and you should talk to a Miami child support attorney promptly.

Facts of the Case and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the father appealed a trial court’s order granting the mother’s petition for modification of child support and denying his counter-petition for modification of timesharing. Allegedly, the parties divorced in 2017, and the father was ordered to pay $331.50 per month in child support. In 2021, the mother filed a supplemental petition, asserting that the father’s income had substantially increased, the child’s needs had grown, and the father had not fully exercised his timesharing rights. The father denied these allegations and filed a counter-petition seeking equal timesharing. He argued that his circumstances had materially changed because he had purchased a home with a bedroom for the child and remarried, providing additional support for the child’s care.

Reportedly, a general magistrate reviewed the evidence, including financial affidavits and testimony from both parties. The magistrate determined that the mother demonstrated substantial and material changes in circumstances justifying an increase in child support, while the father failed to meet the burden required for timesharing modification. The magistrate’s recommendations were adopted by the trial court, leading to an increase in the father’s child support obligation to $506.22 per month. The father’s exceptions to the magistrate’s report were denied, and he appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Discovery is a key component of Florida divorces, as it allows parties to determine one another’s financial status, which in turn allows the courts to determine their rights and obligations. Such disclosure may not be necessary in cases involving prenuptial or antenuptial agreements, however, as discussed in a recent Florida divorce action. If you are contemplating a divorce and are subject to such an agreement, it is important to understand its enforceability, and you should talk to a Miami divorce attorney as soon as possible.

Case Setting and History

It is reported that the wife and husband executed an antenuptial agreement in 2001, which explicitly stated that the parties agreed not to disclose their financial conditions or the nature and character of their estates and property. Allegedly, the agreement was intended to serve as a settlement framework in the event of a dissolution of marriage. In 2023, the wife filed a petition for divorce and asserted that the terms of the antenuptial agreement exempted her from mandatory financial disclosure.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

While most parents want what is best for their child, they do not always agree with their co-parent as to what is in their child’s best interests, and custody disputes can quickly become contentious. When the courts are asked to resolve custody actions, they are expected to do so based on competent and reliable evidence. As such, if they fail to do so and make their decisions based on speculations, there may be grounds for challenging their decisions, as demonstrated in a recent opinion issued in a Florida custody case. If you are engaged in a custody dispute, it is important to understand the standards for evidence and judicial decision-making, and you should consult a Miami child custody attorney as soon as possible.

Case Setting and History

It is reported that the mother and father were engaged in a paternity and custody dispute involving their young child, who had lived in Florida since infancy. Allegedly, the father sought majority timesharing and proposed relocating the child to Michigan, where he resided. The trial court’s decision to award the father majority timesharing was reportedly based on the assumption that the father’s living conditions and circumstances would improve in the future.

Reportedly, the trial court relied heavily on speculative testimony regarding the father’s potential to establish a stable home environment and financial stability. Additionally, the trial court minimized concerns regarding the father’s substance use and lack of a driver’s license despite contrary evidence presented by the mother. The mother appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court’s reliance on hypothetical improvements and insufficient findings violated the child’s best interests. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida, parental relocation disputes require courts to evaluate whether a proposed move aligns with the child’s best interests, as outlined in state statutes. The burden of proving a relocation would benefit a child is placed on the party requesting the move. As discussed in a recent Florida ruling issued in a relocation case, if the party seeking to relocate fails to meet this burden, their request will be denied. If you are involved in a custody or relocation dispute, it is critical to understand your rights and responsibilities, and you should talk to a Miami child custody attorney as soon as possible.

Case Setting and History

It is reported that the mother filed a petition seeking to relocate with her minor child to another state. Allegedly, the mother argued that the move would improve her quality of life and benefit the child, citing factors such as educational opportunities and access to extended family. The trial court conducted a four-day evidentiary hearing and ultimately denied the petition, finding that the proposed relocation did not serve the child’s best interests.

Reportedly, the trial court’s order analyzed the statutory factors set forth in section 61.13001 of the Florida Statutes, which govern relocation petitions. Among other findings, the trial court emphasized that the mother failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that the move would enhance the child’s well-being. The court also noted that the child’s relationship with the father would be significantly disrupted by the move. The mother appealed the denial of her petition.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Under Florida law, alimony determinations must be supported by specific factual findings regarding both parties’ financial circumstances. This means, in part, that courts must carefully assess the needs of the receiving spouse and the ability of the paying spouse to meet those needs. The importance of adhering to statutory guidelines and making detailed findings in alimony awards was highlighted by a recent Florida decision. If you are involved in a divorce case with alimony disputes, consulting a Miami family law attorney can help protect your interests and ensure proper adjudication.

Case Setting and History

It is reported that the husband and the wife divorced. The parties’ dissolution of marriage proceeding included disputes over the amount and duration of alimony. The trial court awarded the wife permanent alimony based on the parties’ gross incomes and retroactive alimony for a specific period.

It is alleged that the husband appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to make the required specific findings regarding the parties’ net incomes, improperly based the alimony award on gross rather than net incomes, and awarded retroactive alimony without determining the former wife’s need for support or the husband’s ability to pay during the retroactive period.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Under Florida law, issues related to the enforcement of temporary support orders during divorce proceedings must adhere to the principles of finality and jurisdiction. Courts must carefully navigate procedural rules to ensure compliance with interlocutory and final judgments, avoiding errors that could render orders unenforceable. The importance of correctly applying the merger doctrine and procedural rules in family law cases was illustrated in a recent Florida divorce action. If you are involved in a divorce or support enforcement matter, consulting a Miami family law attorney can help protect your rights and ensure compliance with the law.

Facts of the Case and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the husband and wife divorced. The trial court subsequently issued temporary support orders requiring the husband to pay monthly expenses for the wife and their minor child. When the husband failed to comply, the court entered multiple contempt orders and money judgments. After the partial final judgment was entered, the husband moved to vacate the prior support and enforcement orders, arguing they were extinguished by the merger doctrine. The trial court agreed, holding that the temporary support orders merged into the partial final judgment and became unenforceable. The wife then appealed.

The Merger Doctrine in Family Law Cases

On appeal, the wife argued that the trial court erred by applying the merger doctrine to extinguish the temporary support orders and judgments, as the partial final judgment explicitly reserved jurisdiction over support and financial matters. The court agreed with the wife, holding that the merger doctrine did not apply to the unresolved issues of support and enforcement. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Under Florida law, paternity determinations must be grounded in valid evidence and aligned with statutory requirements. Courts must ensure that any findings of fraud or misrepresentation are appropriately addressed and that legal parentage is resolved based on the child’s best interests, as demonstrated in a recent Florida decision addressing claims of fraud in paternity disputes. If you are involved in a paternity matter, you should consult a Miami family law attorney who can help safeguard your parental rights and obligations.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the case arose from a dispute regarding the paternity of a minor child. The mother challenged the trial court’s determination that the purported father was the natural parent and father of the child. The trial court based its decision on a presumption of paternity established under section 742.10(1), Florida Statutes (2023), despite finding that the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity had been obtained through the mother’s undisputed fraud.

Allegedly, the mother contended that the finding of fraud should have rebutted the presumption of paternity and precluded Spencer’s legal designation as the child’s father. Nevertheless, the trial court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to fully rebut the presumption of paternity. The mother appealed, asserting that the trial court’s findings were inconsistent and unsupported by legal precedent. Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Paternity
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

Under Florida law, courts determining alimony modifications must assess whether substantial changes in circumstances justify altering prior agreements. Courts are required to base their decisions on competent evidence and equity considerations. A recent Florida decision highlights the importance of detailed analysis and evidence when evaluating whether retirement can justify a reduction in alimony obligations. If you are involved in an alimony dispute, consulting a Miami family law attorney can help ensure your interests are protected.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the husband and the wife were divorced after a 21-year marriage, with the dissolution finalized through a marital settlement agreement (MSA) in 2020. The MSA divided their assets equally and required the husband to pay $7,500 per month as permanent alimony to the wife. At the time of the agreement, both parties were in their late sixties and had substantial retirement assets.

Allegedly, the husband retired in December 2021, selling his business interest for $900,000 and ceasing all employment. His income decreased significantly, with his sole income derived from social security and investments, totaling just over $7,800 monthly. His monthly expenses, however, were $18,682, including the alimony payments. The wife, who had deferred her social security benefits to maximize them, had no income other than the alimony payments and assets totaling approximately $1.8 million. The husband petitioned for a reduction or elimination of alimony based on his retirement and reduced income. The trial court denied the petition, finding that the parties had “contemplated” the husband’s retirement when agreeing to the MSA, and thus, his retirement could not be a basis for modification. The husband then appealed. Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Alimony
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

Under Florida law, courts making timesharing decisions must base their determinations on the child’s best interests, supported by substantial evidence. When a court’s decision relies on speculative or unsupported assumptions, it risks reversal. A recent Florida decision illustrates the need for competent evidence when ordering significant changes to a child’s living arrangement. If you are involved in a custody dispute, it is wise to consult a Miami child custody attorney to ensure your rights are safeguarded.

Case Setting and History

It is reported that the mother and father disputed custody over their daughter, born in 2017, with the mother moving to Florida with the child shortly after birth. Allegedly, in 2021, the father filed for paternity and timesharing rights in Florida, seeking to establish a legal relationship with the child. Reportedly, the mother counterclaimed, seeking sole custody and alleging the father had engaged in abusive behavior, resulting in a domestic violence injunction.

Allegedly, the court initially ordered shared parental responsibility and temporary timesharing, permitting the father visitation during school breaks. The case ultimately proceeded to trial in 2023. It is reported that at trial, witnesses testified to issues related to the father’s alcohol use, lack of a driver’s license, and financial instability. The guardian ad litem recommended that the child remain in Florida with the mother, citing concerns about the father’s ability to serve as the primary caregiver. Nonetheless, the court granted the father majority timesharing in Michigan, contingent on him securing certain improvements in his living situation. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Under Florida law, child custody cases involving multiple states are governed by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), which aims to prevent jurisdictional conflicts and ensure due process. Recently, a Florida court issued an opinion highlighting the importance of procedural fairness when a trial court relinquishes jurisdiction to another state. If you are involved in an interstate custody dispute, it is prudent to consult a Miami child custody attorney to ensure your rights are protected.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff, an aunt who was awarded temporary custody of her minor niece, filed a Petition for Temporary Custody in Florida. Allegedly, the child’s parents, both of whom were incarcerated, consented to the arrangement, and the Florida court awarded the aunt temporary custody. It is reported that the child’s maternal grandmother, residing in North Carolina, had previously taken the child to her home, although she did not formally appear at the custody hearing.

Reportedly, following the Florida court’s temporary custody order, the aunt traveled to North Carolina to retrieve the child, only to find that the grandmother had obtained an ex parte emergency custody order from a North Carolina court. Fearing that the grandmother might leave the country with the child, the aunt filed an emergency motion in Florida for the return of the child. However, the Florida trial court sua sponte issued an order relinquishing jurisdiction to North Carolina without holding a hearing, concluding that North Carolina was a more appropriate forum under the UCCJEA. The aunt appealed, asserting that she was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before the trial court could relinquish jurisdiction. Continue reading ›