Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Custody
In a case in which the court remarked on the time and money spent by both parties in litigating their Florida child custody issues, a major focus was on the time and money that would eventually be spent by the parties in effectuating their parenting plan since each parent lived in a different state. Marini v. Kellett, 5D17-1726 (Fla. 5th DCA August 16, 2019) examines how a court must take into consideration travel time and cost in considering the best interest of a child.
The parties were in a committed relationship which ended before the mother found out she was pregnant. Subsequently, due to the parties being unable to agree on a suitable timesharing schedule, the father filed a petition for paternity and sought to establish a parenting plan. The mother requested to relocate to North Carolina where her fiance resided and where she had a job offer. The petition to relocate was eventually granted with the court ordering timesharing three weekends per month as well as extended timesharing during holidays.
The parties agreed they could not afford the travel ordered by the court and it negatively affected their work schedules since they would be required to miss work to accompany their child for the plane rides. The appellate court reversed the timesharing schedule, holding, “We find that the trial court abused its discretion in establishing this time-sharing and travel schedule as it is unreasonable to require a young child to take two or three dozen annual airplane flights. Such frequent flights with the predictable occasional delays are not in the best interest of the child. Additionally, both parents have testified that they cannot afford the expense of the airline tickets nor the time and income lost from work associated with the travel. We must conclude that no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.”
Next, the court also reviewed the trial court’s decisions on Florida child support and changing the child’s last name. The trial court decided to change the child’s last name to the father’s as requested in order to “promote the father-child relationship". The appellate court reversed, holding “Changing a child's name ‘is a serious matter and such action may be taken only where the record affirmatively shows that such change is required for the welfare of the minor.’ Cothron v. Hadley, 769 So. 2d 1148, 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Here, neither the trial court, Father, nor the record affirmatively show that a change in the child's surname from Mother's to Father's is in the child's best interest. Thus, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the child's surname to be changed to Father's and reverse that portion of the amended final judgment.”
Last, the trial court reversed the child support award because it was based on the parties’ gross incomes rather than net, and it did not give mother the appropriate credit for health insurance premiums for herself and the child. The award of attorneys’ fees and costs to the father was also reversed where the court did not make appropriate findings to support the award, such as need and ability to pay (“The court awarded attorney's fees because Father had no unsupervised visits with the child and had to come to court to obtain such visits. While this reasoning may be a factor for consideration, it does not abrogate the requirement that Mother have the ability to pay and Father have a need.”).
Florida child custody cases are no doubt sometimes filled with emotion. It is therefore important that you consult with a Miami family law attorney about your case to go over the best way to move forward in light of your concerns.