CHARLES D. FRAZIER, APPELLANT,
v.
CATHERINE K. FRAZIER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A trial court cannot condition future visitation rights on the timely payment of child support.
During dissolution proceedings, the appellant willfully refused to keep child support payments current. The trial court conditioned his future visitat…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Visitation Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Charles D. Frazier appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and advances four points for our consideration. The only meritorious point is directed to the provision of the final judgment that conditioned his future visitation rights with his minor children on his timely payment of child support.
During the course of the dissolution proceeding, appellant willfully refused to keep his child support payments current. Such conduct is reprehensible, and the trial court’s condition on visitation privileges was obviously directed to prevent such future conduct. However, on the authority of Acker v. Acker, 365 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Hechler v. Hechler, 351 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Chaffin v. Grigsby, 293 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); and Howard v. Howard, 143 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962), such conditioning of future visitation rights is improper. We, therefore, reverse the final judgment in regard to the condition placed on appellant’s visitation rights and strike the stated condition, “as long as his child support is kept current.” This would not prevent the court from disallowing in the future specific visitation rights upon a showing of willful failure to pay child support. See Acker v. Acker, supra. The final judgment is. affirmed in all other respects,
BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and GRIMES, **•> concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Waugh v. Caren Waugh, 679 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…to pay child support or alimony, the custodial parent shall not refuse to honor the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights.” See also Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Smith, 605 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Frazier v. Frazier, 395 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (conditioning visitation upon payment of support is improper). Upon remand, visitation rights, if awarded, may not be conditioned upon the payment of child support. With respect to the child support provision of the judgment, we…
-
In the Interest of D.F.W. Jr. Dep't OF H.R.S. v. Devel F. Wesley, 497 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…d affirmative defense constitutes waiver); Phillips v. Adams, 339 So. 2d 665, 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (refusal to allow visitation is an affirmative defense). . O'Brien v. O’Brien, 424 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1983). . See also Frazier v. Frazier, 395 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Acker v. Acker, 365 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Hechler v. Hechler, 351 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977); Chaffin v. Grigsby, 293 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Howard v. Howard, 143 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1962).…
Authorities Cited
- Daewid Hechler v. Marita Hechler, 351 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Howard v. Howard, 143 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Chaffin v. Grigsby, 293 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Acker v. Acker, 365 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)