Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Custody
Delay in entering a Florida family law final judgment may require that the court conduct another trial. This is especially true where children are involved. In a recent case in which the court entered a parenting plan one year after it held a trial, the appellate court reversed the final judgment because it was not based on evidence concerning the best interest of the children.
In the divorce case Alvares-Watters v. Watters, 4D2023-1448 (Fla. 4th DCA June 5, 2024), a three-day trial was held on issues related to a parenting plan, child support, and equitable distribution. The court received testimony and other evidence concerning the parties’ residences and the children’s school. The father requested equal time-sharing and for his address in Palm Beach County to be designated for school boundary determination. The mother requested that she have primary time-sharing with her address in Broward County being designated for school. The father testified that he spent about 5 hours on his time-sharing days transporting the children back and forth. A year later, the final judgment was entered which adopted the father’s proposed parenting plan and ordered that his address be designated for school. The mother appealed.
The appellate court reversed, holding “[T]he trial court’s ruling appears to have been made to reduce the time which the former husband spends traveling, and thus seems to be in his best interest rather than the children’s. No discussion occurred either at the trial or in the final judgment about the children’s best interests other than travel time. At trial, no evidence was presented as to what schools were available around the father’s home. Evidence was presented that the older child had attended kindergarten at a Catholic school in Jupiter, but no evidence was presented that school was within the school boundary ordered by the trial court. On the other side of the issue, testimony was presented that the children were doing exceptionally well at both Parkland schools. Also, as we review the 50/50 split, it appears that, while the father may spend less time in the car, the children are likely to spend more time in the car attending schools based on the father’s residence, which would ultimately interfere with school related activities.”
The father conceded errors as to equitable distribution and the court’s failure to address the mother’s claim for retroactive child support. The appellate court commented on the delay in issuing the final judgment stating “Finally, the foregoing errors, including the failure to address issues and the lack of evidence to support rulings, show why we must also reverse for the extreme delay in issuing the final judgment, as excessive delay can be a ground for reversal. See e.g. Caswell v. Caswell, 674 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). This is particularly true in cases involving children.”
Schedule your meeting with a Miami family law attorney to understand your rights and remedies in your case.