E. M.
v.
E. G.
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 lower court's decision to modify a parenting plan but reversed the portion requiring supervised visitation. The court found no evidence to support the need for supervised visitation, which is a significant restriction on parental rights.
The court held that the circuit court abused its discretion in ordering supervised visitation because there were no factual findings or evidence in the record to support the necessity of this restriction. However, the court found no abuse of discretion in the modifications to parental responsibility and time-sharing.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion in ordering supervised visitation without making specific factual findings establishing that such restriction is necessary to protect…
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“We agree, however, that the circuit court abused its discretion in adopting the recommendation that the Mother's visitation with her child must be supervised.”
This quote establishes the court's agreement with the mother on the specific issue of supervised visitation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe mother appealed a circuit court order that adopted a magistrate's recommendation to grant the father sole parental responsibility and majority tim…
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 Parental Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge. E.M., the Mother, appeals a circuit court order that approved and adopted a magistrate's recommended order. The magistrate recommended modifying the parties' parenting plan by giving E.G.,
the Father, sole parental responsibility, awarding him the majority of time-sharing with the child, and directing that the Mother is to have supervised visitation.
We reject without discussion the Mother's arguments that competent, substantial evidence did not support the magistrate's findings pertaining to parental responsibility and time-sharing and that the court abused its discretion in adopting the recommendations. See R.S. v. S.K., 313 So. 3d 901, 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) ("An order granting or denying a petition to modify child custody is presumed correct and generally will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of an abuse of discretion." (citing Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So. 2d 928, 935 (Fla. 2005))).
We are not at liberty to reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact. See Porter v. State, 788 So. 2d 917, 923 (Fla. 2001) (holding that appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the circuit court on issues involving the credibility of the witnesses).
We agree, however, that the circuit court abused its discretion in adopting the recommendation that the Mother's visitation with her child must be supervised.
A trial court has the discretion to limit or restrict a parent's visitation where it is necessary to protect the welfare of the child. Gavronsky v. Gavronsky, 403 So. 2d 627, 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Here, the magistrate made no factual findings as to the necessity for supervised visitation, and there is no evidence in the record to support the need for this restriction. Id. We therefore reverse that portion of the order requiring the Mother to have supervised visitation with the child. Affirmed in part; reversed in part. LaROSE and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2005)
- Porter v. State, 788 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 2001)
- Gavronsky v. Gavronsky, 403 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)