Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Support
What happens when there is a delay between a trial and the date the final judgment is actually entered? Sometimes when too much time has passed, details can be forgotten and evidence becomes stale. An appeal of the final judgment may be necessary when there are differences between the findings made at the hearing and what is included in the order. A delay in entering the final judgment was an issue in the case Tavares v. Enoch, 4D19-2135 (Fla. 4th DCA August 5, 2020).
The parties were involved a contested paternity case in which they disagreed about time-sharing. It took eight months after the final hearing for the court to issue its written final judgment. The father appealed, arguing the delay caused errors in the final judgment, that the court committed error in failing to rule on his motion for indirect civil contempt, and the court erroneously created a summer time-sharing schedule which was not requested by either parent.
The appellate court shared the father’s concern about the delay in entering the final judgment. The court cited the judicial rule of administration 2.250(a)(1)(C) which states a presumptively reasonable time for completion of a family case is 180 days from the date of filing to to final disposition. The court noted, “We cannot say from our review of the record that the trial court's factual error necessarily resulted from the lengthy delay in issuing the final judgment. However, given that factual error's possible materiality to the final judgment's credibility and parenting plan determinations, remand is necessary for the trial court to correct that factual error in the final judgment and re-weigh the correct facts in those determinations.”
Turning to the civil contempt motion, the father alleged the mother violated a temporary order on time-sharing when she refused to timely return the child to him in order to enroll the child in the school of her choice. The father argued this gave the mother a litigation advantage because her choice of school ultimately prevailed and that she should not be rewarded for her violation of a court order. The court held “The father's reliance on rule 12.615(d) is misplaced. Rule 12.615 ‘governs civil contempt proceedings in support matters related to family law cases.’ Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.615(a). This issue did not involve a support matter, and no comparable rule mandates a written order granting or denying a motion for contempt on a time-sharing matter. Despite the father's misplaced reliance on rule 12.615(d), we nevertheless agree with the father that, on these facts, the trial court should have ruled on the father's motion for indirect civil contempt within the final judgment and considered that ruling in the overall context of its parenting plan determination. The mother's alleged violation of the temporary relief order, willful or not, unquestionably affected where the child became enrolled in school. The final judgment, however, is silent on whether that alleged violation affected the parenting plan determination. Remand is necessary for this consideration to be expressly stated.”
As to the summer time-sharing issue, the court ruled “we conclude without further discussion that the circuit court was within its discretion to find that multiple visits with each parent was in the child's best interest instead of lengthy single visits with each parent.” Schedule a consultation with a Miami child custody lawyer to understand how the law may be applied to your case.