LAURA PESCOD
v.
CHRISTOPHER IRVIN
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.
Laura Pescod appeals a trial court's ex parte order granting her ex-partner's motion to implement a guardian ad litem's recommendations, including reunification therapy and a three-month suspension of her parental timesharing. The court reverses, holding that an ex parte order affecting parental rights requires an evidentiary hearing and a showing of emergency circumstances.
The trial court reversibly erred in granting the motion without first holding an evidentiary hearing. An ex parte order requires both an allegation of emergency circumstances and proper evidentiary support, neither of which was present here.
[1] An ex parte order requiring a parent to participate in reunification therapy and suspending overnight timesharing with a child is reversible error when entered without an…
[2] A party seeking an ex parte order must allege an emergency situation as required by law.
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 intelligence“Although the motion upon which the order was predicated was sworn to by Mr. Irvin, Mr. Irvin did not allege an emergency situation as required for entry of an ex parte order and his only support was the unsworn report of the guardian ad litem.”
Establishes the defects in the motion that prevented proper ex parte entry
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court entered an order in December 2020 without a hearing, implementing recommendations from a guardian ad litem. The order required Ms. Pes…
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 Ex Parte Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
BLACK, Judge. Laura L. Pescod challenges the trial court's order granting Christopher G. Irvin's "Verified Emergency Motion to Adopt the Interim Recommendations of the Guardian Ad Litem." The court
granted Mr. Irvin's motion on an ex parte basis, finding that it was in the best interest of the parties' minor child to implement the recommendations of the guardian ad litem.
We reverse. The order on appeal was entered in December 2020 without a hearing. It required Ms. Pescod and the parties' child to participate in reunification therapy and implemented a three-month "time out" during which time Ms. Pescod did not have timesharing with the child overnight or at Ms. Pescod's home. Although the motion upon which the order was predicated was sworn to by Mr. Irvin, Mr. Irvin did not allege an emergency situation as required for entry of an ex parte order and his only support was the unsworn report of the guardian ad litem. See Bahl v. Bahl, 220 So. 3d 1214, 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).
Accordingly, the trial court reversibly erred in granting the motion without first holding an evidentiary hearing. See id. The December 2020 order must be vacated on remand.1 1 Despite the fact that no relief can be afforded to Ms. Pescod because the order is no longer in effect, we conclude that under the circumstances of this case the appeal is not moot and that the order must be vacated so that it may not be utilized in future timesharing proceedings. Cf. Cancellari v. Rance, 779 So. 2d 373, 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Julian v. Bryan, 710 So. 2d 1037, 1039 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Troike v. Troike, 271 So. 3d 1069, 1072 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
Reversed and remanded with instructions. LUCAS and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Julian v. Bryan, 710 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Cancellari v. Rance, 779 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Troike v. Troike, 271 So. 3d 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
- Bahl v. Rupa P. Bahl, 220 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)