THOMAS LOFTON
v.
KAITLYN ARTHUR
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 appellate court affirmed a trial court's order awarding sole parental responsibility and total timesharing to the mother. The court found the father had sexually abused the child and properly admitted the child's hearsay statements as evidence.
The appellate court held that the trial court properly admitted the child's hearsay statements and did not abuse its discretion in refusing to provide a path to reunification for the father.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to provide a parent a path to reunification when the parent's timesharing is suspended due to findings of child se…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The trial court properly admitted into evidence the child’s hearsay statements disclosing sexual abuse by her father.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the admissibility of evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe biological father appealed an order granting the mother sole parental responsibility and total timesharing. The trial court admitted the child's h…
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 Hearsay Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
ROWE, C.J., and LONG, J., concur; KELSEY, J., concurs with opinion.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
KELSEY, J., concurring.
The biological father of these parties’ very young daughter appeals the trial court’s order awarding sole parental responsibility and total timesharing to the mother. The trial court properly admitted into evidence the child’s hearsay statements disclosing sexual abuse by her father. See § 90.803(23)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2020) (listing factors for deciding to admit child hearsay). The father has not provided a transcript or statement in lieu of transcript of the evidentiary hearing preceding the court’s decision to admit the child hearsay, but the court summarized the evidence and findings of that hearing at the beginning of the trial on the mother’s paternity petition. The record reflects the child’s statements and actions consistent with sexual abuse, physical evidence suggesting sexual abuse following her time with the father, and the father’s troubling statement to the mother that “They [law enforcement and the Department of Children and Families] couldn’t catch me then [at the time of the abuse], so what are you going to do about it now?”. The record supports the trial court’s finding that the father sexually abused the child, which in turn supports the judgment appealed.
I likewise find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to provide the father a path to reunification. See C.N. v. I.G.C., 316 So. 3d 287, 288 (Fla. 2021) (holding that “there is no such requirement” that a trial court “must give a parent ‘concrete steps’ to restore lost time-sharing”); Dukes v. Griffin, 230 So. 3d 155, 156–57 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (holding trial court does not err in failing to provide path to reunification when parent’s timesharing is suspended).
_____________________________
Eduardo J. Mejias of AAA Family Law, LLC, Altamonte Springs, for Appellant.
Lawrence J. Marraffino of Lawrence J. Marraffino, P.A., Gainesville, for Appellee.