JUNE MALONEY, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL WILLIAM MALONEY, 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.
The court held that a trial court erred by conditioning child support payments on visitation rights, as statutory law dictates that support determination is unaffected by visitation interference.
[1] A court cannot condition the payment of child support on the custodial parent's allowance of visitation rights.
[2] Interference with visitation rights does not affect the determination or enforcement of a duty of support under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA).
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a divorce and a child support order, the wife moved and initiated an action under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA).…
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 Modification Of Support Obligations cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
The wife appeals an order of the lower court which conditions the first $20 payment of child support upon the husband being allowed visitation. We address the issue of whether the trial court erred by conditioning payment of child support on visitation.
The husband and wife were divorced in Sarasota County on February 20, 1979. In the final judgment of dissolution the husband was required to pay to the wife the sum of $20 per week for child support. Subsequently, the wife moved to Michigan and filed an action under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URE-SA) against the husband. At the hearing the husband complained of difficulties with visitation. The final judgment of dissolution of marriage had granted the husband reasonable rights of visitation. The trial judge entered an order which conditioned the first $20 payment for child support on visitation rights.
Section 88.271, Florida Statutes (1979), states that “The determination or enforcement of a duty of support owed to one petitioner is unaffected by any interference by another petitioner with rights of custody or visitation granted by a court.” The only subject matter covered under this section and chapter appears to be the duty of support. Grosse v. Grosse, 347 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Vecellio v. Vecellio, 313 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Davis v. Davis, 376 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
Though URESA creates no duty of support, it does provide a means for enforcing the duty of support as that duty may exist under the law of the responding state. Ray v. Pentlicki, 375 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)). Thus, the husband can assert his reasonable right to visitation by applying for modification of his support obligation under the original dissolution judgment on the basis that the wife is interfering with visitation rights granted to him under the original dissolution judgment.
Accordingly, the order appealed is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REMANDED.
BOARDMAN and DANAHY, JJi, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Helmick v. Helmick, 436 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…ation would be justifiable upon proof of “change of circumstances” but reversed the Florida trial court’s reduction of a registered Connecticut decree because the particular facts did not warrant the reduction. . Appellant cites Maloney v. Maloney, 396 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), and Kirby v. Kirby, 405 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), pet. dism’d 412 So. 2d 467 (Fla.1982), for the proposition that registered foreign support orders are modifiable by Florida courts. In Maloney it is not apparent whether the…
-
Fla. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Ciferni, 429 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…September 1 of each year after the husband filed an affidavit “with respect to visitation.” The clerk was to remit the funds to the father if visitation had been denied. The only issue covered by the Act is the duty of support. Maloney v. Maloney, 396 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Grosse v. Grosse, 347 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). In fact, the Act appears to exclude consideration of visitation since section 88.-271, Florida Statutes (1981), states: “The determination or enforcement of a duty of support…
-
State v. Rock, 429 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…challenging the court’s order. The only matter that can be addressed in a URESA proceeding is that of support. Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services ex rel. Ciferni v. Ciferni, 429 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Maloney v. Maloney, 396 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Grosse v. Grosse, 347 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Vecellio v. Vecellio, 313 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Recently, in Ciferni, Judge Grimes noted that URESA apparently excludes any consideration of visitation because of the…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Loehe v. State, 313 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- RAY v. Pentlicki, 375 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Grosse v. Grosse, 347 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Davis v. Davis, 376 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)