ANDREA PICARD
v.
JONATHAN PICARD
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 timesharing schedule but reversed and remanded on two other issues. The court found the trial court erred by awarding one parent ultimate decision-making authority over extracurricular activities without it being requested and by failing to attach a complete parenting plan to the final judgment.
Yes, the trial court erred by awarding ultimate decision-making authority over extracurricular activities as it was not requested by the father. The court also erred by failing to attach a complete parenting plan to the final judgment, as it was incorporated by reference with modifications, leaving no single definitive document.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion and violates due process by awarding a parent relief that was not requested in their petition.
[2] A final judgment in a family law matter must attach a complete, integrated parenting plan rather than incorporating it by reference to a trial exhibit when the judgment i…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Because competent substantial evidence supported the trial court's timesharing schedule, we affirm with regard to that schedule without further comment.”
Establishes the court's affirmation of the timesharing schedule.
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 final judgment on a parenting plan and timesharing. She argued the court erred by giving the father weekend timesharing during t…
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 Ultimate Decision-Making Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge. Andrea Picard (the mother) appeals the trial court's final judgment on parenting plan and timesharing. She contends that the court erred by (i) adopting a timesharing schedule that gives Jonathan Picard (the father) weekends with their four children during the school year; (ii) awarding the father ultimate decision-making authority over the children's extracurricular activities; and (iii) failing to attach a copy of the parenting plan to the final judgment. Because competent substantial evidence supported the trial court's timesharing schedule, we affirm with regard to that schedule without
further comment. The mother's two other contentions, however, have merit.
First, as the father concedes, because he did not ask for ultimate decision-making authority over the children's extracurricular activities, it should not have been awarded to him. See Booth v. Hicks, 301 So. 3d 369, 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) ("By granting the Father relief he did not request in his petition, the trial court violated the Mother's due process rights and abused its discretion."); Stover v. Stover, 287 So. 3d 1277, 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (concluding that the trial court erred by awarding exclusive timesharing to a mother who only requested partial timesharing).
Second, although the final judgment adopts the mother's parenting plan, it incorporates that plan only by reference to its trial exhibit number and also includes several modifications to that plan's provisions.
Thus, as it stands, there is no single document the parties can look to that comprises the entire approved plan.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to award the parties shared decision-making authority as to extracurriculars and to approve and attach to the final judgment a copy of a parenting plan consistent with this opinion. See Sadlak v. Trujillo, 336 So. 3d 1275, 1280 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (directing the trial court to approve and attach the parenting plan to the final judgment); Magdziak v. Sullivan, 185 So. 3d 1292, 1293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (reversing final judgment that adopted the father's recommended parenting plan without attaching it). In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with instructions. NORTHCUTT and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Picard v. Picard, 287 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…awarded to him. See Booth v. Hicks, 301 So. 3d 369, 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) ("By granting the Father relief he did not request in his petition, the trial court violated the Mother's due process rights and abused its discretion."); Stover v. Stover, 287 So. 3d 1277, 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (concluding that the trial court erred by awarding exclusive timesharing to a mother who only requested partial timesharing). Second, although the final judgment adopts the mother's parenting plan, it incorporates that plan…
-
Rosaly v. Veronika Konecny, 346 So. 3d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…uld have said so, as it did in section 741.30. In addition, Appellee did not file a petition on behalf of her children seeking exclusive time sharing. “[C]ourts are not authorized to award relief not requested in the pleadings.” Stover v. Stover, 287 So. 3d 1277, 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (quoting Abbott v. Abbott, 98 So. 3d 616, 617–18 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)). “A trial court violates due process and reversibly errs when it awards relief not sought by the pleadings.” Schot v. Schot, 273 So. 3d 48, 51 (Fla. 4th…
-
Bell v. Battaglia, 332 So. 3d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Picard v. Picard, 287 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)
- Kenzie Sadlak v. Trujillo, 336 So. 3d 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)