ROSA E. VAZQUEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
MANUEL D. VAZQUEZ, 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.
Wife appealed custody and educational provisions of a divorce decree, contesting the trial court's requirement that the children continue Catholic education despite her preference for Baptist school. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that under Florida's new shared parental responsibility statute, the trial court properly imposed specific educational and religious decisions when the parents could not agree.
The trial court did not err. Under Florida's shared parental responsibility statute (Section 61.13(2)(b)2a), when parents cannot agree on specific aspects of a child's welfare, the court may grant ultimate responsibility over those aspects to one party based on the best interests of the child, overriding the presumption that the custodial parent makes such decisions unilaterally.
[1] In dissolution proceedings, courts are directed to require shared parental responsibility unless it would be detrimental to the child.
[2] The public policy of Florida is to assure each minor child frequent and continuing contact with both parents after separation or dissolution of marriage.
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“It is the public policy of this state to assure each minor child frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage and to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of childrearing.”
Establishes the legislative intent behind the shared parental responsibility statute that governs the court's authority to allocate parental decisions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRosa and Manuel Vazquez divorced. The trial court awarded custody of their three minor children to the wife but granted the husband liberal visitation…
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 Shared Parental Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
From the child custody provisions of a final judgment dissolving a marriage the wife has perfected this appeal.
Custody of the parties’ three minor children was awarded to the wife but the husband was given very liberal visitation rights, including periods away from the wife’s home, vacation, and holidays. Specifically the final judgment provided:
“The Court finds that, because the children have commenced their Catholic education, it would be in their best interest, at this moment, for them to continue the same and not disrupt their lives. The Court also feels that it would be in the best interest of the youngest child, MIL-CA, to be enrolled in the Catholic school when she commences first grade next year, in order to be enrolled in the same school with her two older sisters. The Wife indicated that she had no objection to the children receiving first communion and confirmation.”
The wife seeks reversal of the foregoing provisions because she prefers to place the children in a Baptist school. The record is clear the parties cannot agree on the schooling and religious training of the children.
The wife contends the trial court erred when it imposed specific educational religious decisions upon the wife as custodial parent. She points to cases such as Connelly v. Connelly, 409 So. 2d 175 (Fla.App. 1982), and Bennett v. Bennett, 73 So. 2d 274 (Fla.1954), which held that decisions of that nature are for the parent to whom custody of the children has been awarded. The husband counters this contention by citing the new 1982 legislative act providing for “shared parental responsibility.” Section 61.13(2)(b)2 a, Florida Statutes (Supp.1982). The husband argues that the parties could not agree on these facets of custodial care and the trial judge followed the desires of the husband in this respect, which is specifically provided for in the statute.
Had this decision predated the shared parental responsibility act, Connelly and Bennett, supra, would clearly require reversal. However, we believe the husband is correct in that the legislature has directed the courts to require shared parental responsibility in all cases unless it would be detrimental to the child. The legislature pronounced that:
It is the public policy of this state to assure each minor child frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage and to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of childrearing. 61.13(2)(b)l, Florida Statutes (Supp.1982).
The subject is further refined in subsection 2, wherein the law makers directed:
In ordering shared parental responsibility, the court may consider the expressed desires of the parents and may grant to one party the ultimate responsibility over specific aspects of the child’s welfare or may divide those aspects between the parties based on the best interests of the child. 61.13(2)(b)2 a, Florida Statutes (Supp.1982).
Under the circumstances of this case and in view of the policy and directions announced in the shared parental responsibility act we hold the trial judge properly exercised her discretion.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and DELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martinez v. Martinez, 573 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…ren, the court is required to designate, based on the best interests of the children, one parent to have the ultimate responsibility for making decisions regarding that specific aspect of the children’s welfare. See, for example, Vasquez v. Vasquez, 443 So. 2d 313, 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), rev. denied, 451 So. 2d 851 (Fla.1984), wherein the parents could not agree on the schooling and [*42] religious training of their children, and the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order granting the husband ulti…
-
Markham v. Markham, 485 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…and continuing contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage and to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child rearing. . § 61.13(2)(b)2.a., Fla.Stat. (1983); see Vazquez v. Vazquez, 443 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), review denied, 451 So. 2d 851 (Fla.1984). . See Holland v. Holland, 458 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Nichols v. Nichols, 432 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). . See Bentzoni v. Bentzoni, 442 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), Kis…
-
Sotnick v. Sotnick, 650 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…y enrolled in a course of study pursuant to a rehabilitative alimony award. As this issue was not raised in the trial court, we do not consider it. . No similar agreement exists for the parties' younger child. . As explained in Vazquez v. Vazquez, 443 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), review denied, 451 So. 2d 851 (Fla.1984), the enactment of this provision changed earlier law which had "held that decisions of that nature [religious upbringing] are for the parent to whom custody of the children has been award…
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
- Bennett v. Bennett, 73 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1954)
- Chanh v. Connelly, 409 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)