T. A.
v.
A. S.
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.
A father appealed a paternity judgment that established him as the biological father of a minor child and set a multiphase timesharing schedule contingent on completion of certain events. The appellate court reversed the timesharing provision because it improperly relied on a prospective-based best interest analysis, while affirming the paternity determination and other aspects of the judgment.
The court reversed the multiphase timesharing schedule because prospective-based parenting plans are impermissible under Florida law. The Father may petition for modification at any time, but any timesharing determination must be based on a current best interest analysis rather than anticipated future events.
[1] A multiphase timesharing schedule that is contingent upon the completion of future events and does not involve judicial intervention is an impermissible prospective-based…
[2] A timesharing plan that automatically graduates based on the completion of certain events is contrary to the disapproval of prospective-based best interest analyses.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“This automatically graduated timesharing arrangement is thus contrary to the reasoning in Arthur disapproving a prospective-based best interest analysis on the basis that the factors 'could change within the extended time period given by the court.'”
The court's rationale for why multiphase timesharing schedules violate established precedent against prospective-based custody determinations.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA trial court determined that T.A. (the Father) was the biological father of minor child C.S. The court issued a final judgment of paternity that incl…
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 Timesharing cases and more on FLexlaw
SLEET, Judge. T.A., the Father, appeals the final judgment of paternity in which the trial court determined him to be the biological father of the minor child C.S. and, among other things, set a timesharing schedule. The Father argues, and the Mother concedes, that the trial court erred by improperly basing the multiphase timesharing schedule on the completion of contingent events. Because the timesharing plan applies an impermissible prospective-based best interest analysis, we reverse that portion of the order.
We find no merit in the Father's remaining arguments on appeal and affirm the order in all other respects. The timesharing schedule that was issued in the final judgment is a prospective-based plan that includes four separate phases that allow for the Father's timesharing to be gradually increased based upon the completion of certain events and without judicial intervention.
However, this court has disapproved of such prospective-based parenting plans. See Natali v. Natali, 313 So. 3d 958, 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) ("This automatically graduated timesharing arrangement is thus contrary to the reasoning in Arthur disapproving a prospective-based best interest analysis on the basis that the factors 'could change within the extended time period given by the court.' " (quoting Arthur v. Arthur, 54 So. 3d 454, 459 (Fla. 2010))).
Accordingly, we reverse only the portion of the final judgment relating to the multiphase timesharing schedule which increases the Father's timesharing only after the completion of certain events. See id. The Father retains the right to petition the court for a modification at any time. However, the trial court's best interest determination cannot be prospective-based. See id. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. CASANUEVA and KELLY, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.