BOWMAN
v.
KARDASH
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.
In a paternity case involving a child born to unmarried parents, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court's award of equal timesharing but reversed the parental responsibility provision, holding that the court abused its discretion by failing to impose protective conditions (counseling and psychiatric care) that a psychologist had deemed necessary for unsupervised timesharing, and by not tailoring parental responsibility despite the mother's extreme and persistent misbehavior.
The court affirmed the equal timesharing arrangement but reversed and remanded on both issues: the court abused its discretion by omitting the psychologist's recommended protective conditions of counseling and psychiatric care from the parenting order, and by awarding fully shared parental responsibility without either imposing limitations on the mother's responsibility or explaining its refusal to do so, requiring the trial court to revisit both determinations on remand.
[1] A court abuses its discretion by omitting necessary protective measures from a parenting order when those measures are expressly conditioned on expert recommendations for…
[2] A prior judgment is not entitled to res judicata effect if it was not rendered final at the time due to pending motions for rehearing.
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“Because the psychologist's recommendation of equal, unsupervised timesharing was expressly conditioned on counseling and psychiatric care, the omission of those conditions from the final parenting order was an abuse of discretion.”
Establishes the core holding that protective conditions recommended by the psychologist were mandatory protective measures that should have been included in the parenting order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceZane Bowman and Regina Kardash had a child together in 2017 but were never married. Kardash engaged in extreme and persistent misbehavior throughout 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 Sole Parental Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
Regina A. Kardash, pro se.
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Zane Bowman and Regina Kardash had a child together in 2017. They have never been married. In remarkably heated and tortuous paternity litigation, the circuit court ultimately entered a judgment ordering equal timesharing and shared parental responsibility, from which Bowman appeals.
The litigation was unnecessarily lengthy and contentious, almost entirely due to Kardash's extreme and persistent misbehavior. We need
not describe her conduct in detail. Suffice it to say that Kardash's instability and vituperativeness—directed at Bowman, his attorney, third-party providers, and even the court—were of an uncommon magnitude, to the point, for example, that the child's school disenrolled him and that on another occasion, the court was forced to order an emergency suspension of her timesharing.1 Given the challenges posed by Kardash's behavior, we commend the circuit judge for the patient, even-handed, and deliberative manner in which he conducted the proceeding.
After careful consideration, albeit with some reluctance, we conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by ordering equal, unsupervised timesharing. Notably, the court itself hesitated to do so, writing that "[t]he court has considered granting the Mother limited timesharing without overnights. Her behavior is some of the most extreme in family court. The court questions whether it should." Ultimately, the court concluded that Kardash did not pose a physical
Importantly, the circuit court's fear for the child's safety was allayed by the opinion of a psychologist who had evaluated and tested Kardash and found that she scored low on the child abuse potential inventory. The psychologist testified that he did not have a concern, provided that Kardash was in counseling and following psychiatric advice for medication. But even though the court placed "great weight" on that testimony, the court did not include in the parenting order a directive that Kardash comply with those requirements.
In C.N. v. I.G.C., 316 So. 3d 287, 292 (Fla. 2021), the court described a therapy requirement as a "protective measure[]" intended to further the success of the parties' parenting plan. That is precisely the purpose such a requirement would serve in this case. Because the psychologist's recommendation of equal, unsupervised timesharing was expressly conditioned on counseling and psychiatric care, the omission of those conditions from the final parenting order was an abuse of discretion. This necessitates a reversal and remand for the imposition of reasonable and necessary protective measures consistent with the psychologist's recommendation.
Turning to the parental responsibility provision, we have difficulty sussing why the circuit court ordered fully shared parental responsibility under the facts of this case. Section 61.13(2)(c)4, Florida Statutes (2024), authorizes a court to assign responsibility over specific aspects of the child's welfare to one party or the other based on the best interests of the child. "Areas of responsibility may include education, health care, and any other responsibilities that the court finds unique to a particular family." Id. Beyond that, section 61.13(2)(c)5 requires the court to order sole parental responsibility to one parent if it is in the child's best interests.
The circumstances of this case begged for the exercise of the circuit court's authority to tailor the parties' parenting authority. In its final order, the court wrote that "[n]early every institution related to the minor child had difficulty working with the Mother." Indeed, "[t]he Mother launches into ad homin[em] attacks on nearly everyone. Most of the people she attacks are dedicated to helping the minor child. She attacks them when things are not done exactly her way. This is harmful to the minor child." Certainly, it was not in the child's best interest to permit this behavior to continue. On the record before it at that time, the court should have imposed appropriate limitations on Kardash's parental responsibility or at least included in its judgment an explanation for failing to do so.
That said, substantial time has now passed since the circuit court received the evidence in our record. We are unaware of how the parties have fared since or what the current circumstances are related to the child's well-being. Therefore, on remand the court must revisit its shared responsibility determination in light of this opinion and the current situation. It may either reaffirm its award of full shared parental responsibility if the current circumstances permit, or it may alter the award as appropriate. The court may take additional evidence on this issue as it deems necessary.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with instructions. KHOUZAM and MORRIS, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior publication.