Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Custody

Shared responsibility is presumed to be in the best interest of a child under Florida law. This presumption can be overcome if a parent can prove that shared parental responsibility is detrimental to a child. This was an issue in the case Mooningham v. Mooningham, 5D22-1800 (Fla. 5th DCA April 28, 2023).

In this divorce case, the parties entered a partial consent final judgment which provided for shared parental responsibility. The parties proceeded to trial on unresolved issues which included child support and time-sharing. Neither party requested modification of the shared parental provision of the partial consent judgment, nor did either party present evidence regarding this issue at trial. Despite this, the trial court entered a final judgment that incorporated a parenting plan that granted shared parental responsibility with ultimate decision-making authority awarded to the mother on “education, academics, and non-emergency health care in the event the parties are unable to agree.” The father appealed, arguing this was a violation of his due process rights and that no finding of detriment to the child was made to support awarding ultimate-decision making authority to the mother.

The appellate court agreed with the father. The court held “Former Husband was deprived of due process when the trial court’s final judgment included the conditions to shared parental responsibility from the Parenting Plan without affording him notice and the opportunity to be heard regarding those conditions. [internal citation omitted]. Former Husband did not, as Former Wife contends, ‘open the door’ or otherwise impliedly consent to trial on parental responsibility by contesting the separate and distinct provision regarding reunification therapy because the evidence presented was relevant to a properly pled issue and was not admitted for the purpose of trying any issue related to shared parental responsibility.” The court further held “In this case, the trial court’s final judgment contained no specific finding of detriment to [the child], which section 61.13(2)(c)2 requires for the court to depart from the statute’s mandate of shared parental responsibility.” The court reiterated its prior holding in another case “that a finding of detriment to the child is distinct from any findings regarding the best interests of the child.”

Schedule your meeting with a Miami family law attorney to understand the next best steps in your case.