JACOB GAVRONSKY, APPELLANT,
v.
DOROTHY KIMBALL GAVRONSKY, 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.
In this family law appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's property division awarding the marital home to the appellee but reversed visitation restrictions imposed on the appellant father as overbroad and unsupported by evidence. The court held that while courts have discretion to restrict visitation to protect child welfare, such restrictions must be grounded in factual findings and evidentiary support.
The court affirmed the property division but reversed the visitation restrictions in their entirety, finding them overbroad and lacking evidentiary support. The court held that while trial courts have discretion to restrict visitation when necessary to protect child welfare, such restrictions must be supported by factual findings and evidence in the record.
[1] A court may restrict or limit child visitation when necessary to protect the welfare of the child.
[2] Visitation restrictions must be supported by record evidence and factual findings demonstrating their necessity.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“While the denial or restriction of visitation rights is generally disfavored... it is within the court's discretion to restrict or limit visitation as may be necessary to protect the welfare of the child.”
Establishes the legal standard that visitation restrictions are disfavored but permissible when supported by necessity to protect child welfare.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJacob Gavronsky sought review of a dissolution order in a marriage to Dorothy Kimball Gavronsky. The order awarded the marital home to the appellee an…
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 Child Welfare cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of a dissolution order which awards appellee the marital home and which places various restrictions upon appellant regarding child visitation.
We affirm the property division in this case on the authority of Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980), but find that several of the visitation restrictions are overbroad and unsupported by any evidentiary predicate, and we reverse that aspect of the order. While the denial or restriction of visitation rights is generally disfavored, see Yandell v. Yandell, 39 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1949), it is within the court’s discretion to restrict or limit visitation as may be necessary to protect the welfare of the child. See Adams v. Adams, 376 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Hechler v. Hechler, 351 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
But Adams and Hech-ler also indicate that record evidence must support the necessity for any visitation restrictions. In the present case no factual findings were made as to the necessity for visitation restrictions, and the record lacks any evidentiary support regarding the need for several of the restrictions which were imposed. For example, the order requires that all visitation be attended by either appellant’s mother or sister, and further requires that the children (both male, ages 6 years and 4 years at the time of the hearing) be provided separate beds and that neither of them sleep in the same bed with appellant (their father).
The present record lacks an adequate evidentiary predicate as to the necessity of such restrictions, and appellant’s motion stating limited conditions for temporary visitation was not directed to, and accordingly did not stipulate, the restrictions imposed by the final order.
We note also the apparent lack of any potential evidentiary predicate for certain of the restrictions imposed, i. e., the requirement that any medication taken by appellant at such times must be prescribed by a physician licensed to practice in Duval County (thereby prohibiting treatment by an out-of-state physician), and the further requirement that no one other than appellant, his mother and sister, and the children, be present during visitation. Cf., Patrick v. Patrick, 358 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
The order appealed is accordingly reversed as to the entirety of the visitation restrictions imposed, and otherwise affirmed. The cause is hereby remanded for such further proceedings as may be warranted, which may include additional evidence and the entry of a “visitation restriction” order which is supported by evidence.
SHAW, J., concurs.
BOOTH, J., concurs in part, dissents in part.
BOOTH, Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part:
I would affirm the judgment below in its entirety.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hunter v. Hunter, 540 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…isfavored, § 61.13(2)(b)1, Fla.Stat. (Supp. 1986), the trial court has discretion to restrict or deny visitation when necessary to protect the welfare of the children. See French v. French, 452 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Gavronsky v. Gavronsky, 403 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Adams v. Adams, 376 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1109 (Fla.1980); Hechler v. Hechler, 351 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Walborsky v. Walborsky, 258 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 263 So. 2…
-
Nalley v. Nalley, 406 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…denial of visitation rights is generally disfavored, see Yandell v. Yandell, 39 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1949), however when it is necessary to protect the welfare of the child the court has discretion to restrict or limit visitation. Gavronsky v. Gavronsky, 403 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In Adams v. Adams, 376 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), the court upheld severe restrictions on the father’s right of visitation stating the restrictions were justified by a view of the record concerning the relationship of Mr. A…
-
Allen v. Allen, 787 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…ion of visitation rights is generally disfavored, see Yandell v. Ycmdell, 39 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1949), it is within the court’s discretion to restrict or limit visitation as may be necessary to protect the welfare of the child. Gavronsky v. Gavronsky, 403 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)(citing Adams v. Adams, 376 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Hechler v. Hechler, 351 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)). Although we recognize that the restriction of visitation rights is generally disfavored, in this case we believe…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Ashleigh M. Moye v. Moye (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
- Harland Morrison Adams v. Adams, 376 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Daewid Hechler v. Marita Hechler, 351 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Patrick v. Patrick, 358 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)