ZACHARY RANKIN,

v.

BLAINE LOUNSBURY,

MILLER, J.

Appellant, Zachary Rankin, the father, challenges a final judgment establishing paternity and a parenting plan. On appeal, the father contends the trial court violated his due process rights by awarding appellee, Blaine Lounsbury, the mother, sole decision-making authority as to the educational and non-emergency medical needs of the minor child in the event the parties are unable to agree.

In her pleadings and other written submissions, the mother specifically requested an order “[e]stablishing a parenting plan that provides for shared responsibility of the minor child, if appropriate,” and detailed the historical refusal by the father to cooperate in joint decisions. Further, the issues precipitating this resistance were extensively litigated at trial.

As the decision below is undeniably supported by competent, substantial evidence, we affirm the well-reasoned order under review in all respects and write only to commend the trial judge for her judicious handling of this contentious and difficult case. See Cruz v. Domenech, 905 So. 2d 938, 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Moncher v. Maine, 892 So. 2d 1147, 1148–50 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); see also Regan v. Regan, 660 So. 2d 1166, 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Moses v. Moses, 347 So. 3d 385, 390 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021); Schneider v. Schneider, 864 So. 2d 1193, 1194–95 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); § 61.13(2)(c)2.(a), Fla. Stat. (2021) amended by ch. 2021-139, § 1, Laws of Fla.

Affirmed.