Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Custody
Modification of a Florida parenting plan requires a finding by a court of a substantial, material and unanticipated change in circumstances. Failure to include findings to this effect usually requires reversal of the final judgment on appeal. The case Romeo v. Romeo, 2D19-3237 (Fla. 2d DCA November 20, 2020) sheds light on this standard.
The parties were divorced in 2007 and at that time entered an agreed parenting plan concerning their three minor children. The former husband filed a petition to gain increased timesharing and to decrease his child support. The trial court entered an order granting the former husband’s request and the former wife appealed, arguing there was no finding of a substantial change in circumstances.
The appellate court reversed, holding “The supplemental final judgment did not, however, include a finding that there had been a ‘substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances’ that warranted a modification to the parenting plan. See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2019); [citation omitted]. The failure to include that finding—perhaps the most important determination a family court must make in a modification proceeding—will typically require reversal of a judgment that modifies a prior judgment's parenting plan.”
Although the former husband argued the former wife stipulated at trial that there had been a substantial change in circumstances, the appellate court rejected this, holding “The court included no such finding in its supplemental final judgment, but more importantly, that is simply not reflected in the record. The Former Wife did agree to changing overnight timesharing with the Former Husband for every other Sunday. But her counsel was clear, unequivocal, and adamant that her agreement was not a stipulation that there had been a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances. To the extent the circuit court construed it as such, the court was in error. See Brown v. Brown, 124 So. 3d 424, 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (‘[A] parent's consent to extra visitation is not a basis for a modification.’); cf. Utopia Provider Sys., Inc. v. Pro-Med Clinical Sys., LLC, 196 So. 3d 557, 561 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (‘When construing stipulations, a court should attempt to interpret it in line with the apparent intent of the parties.’).”
Schedule a meeting with a Miami family law attorney to strategize about the best way to approach your case.