Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Custody

Can a parent be held in contempt for attending a child’s extracurricular activities on days that the parent does not have time-sharing? The answer depends on what the parenting plan says. Most parenting plans do not prohibit a parent from doing this. This was an issue in the case Izard v. Bois, 4D2023-2502 (Fla. 4th DCA July 31, 2024).

The parties’ parenting plan stated both parents were permitted to attend the children’s events as long as they did not approach each other. The plan also contained specific provisions regarding communication with the children. The parties’ oldest child asked the father to meet him at his extracurricular activity with a snack. After the activity, the child sat in the father’s car and ate the snack. The child then rode his bicycle to his next activity, and the father followed him in his car to ensure his safety, then left. The mother found out about these meetings and hired a private investigator to follow the father. The investigator prepared a report which indicated the father’s attendance at the children’s extracurricular activities, but did not indicate he was in any way interfering with the activities.

Based on this, the mother filed a motion for contempt against the father, alleging he was trying to obtain extra visitation time and him feeding the children interrupted her schedule with the children because the children would decline to eat dinner when they came home. The father responded by filing a 57.105 motion, requesting attorney’s fees for filing frivolous or unsupported claims. He argued his actions were not in violation of any part of the parenting plan. After a hearing, the trial court denied the mother’s motion, finding the father did nothing wrong, and the court also found the mother was interfering with the father’s phone calls. The court granted the father’s 57.105 motion and the mother appealed.

The appellate court held “Here, the trial court simply awarded fees under 57.105 in a conclusory fashion, but it failed to make the required factual findings in its order. The court’s single conclusory paragraph failed to comply with the requirements for an award of 57.105 attorney’s fees. [. . .] In fact, the former husband’s 57.105 motion was not discussed at the hearing on the motion for contempt, nor did the trial court notice the 57.105 motion for a separate hearing. The trial court simply awarded fees without making the required findings. We therefore reverse and remand the case to the trial court for the requisite findings to be made in its support of the fee award.”

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