JESSICA RUSSELL N/K/A JESSICA WILLIAMS,
v.
JOEL ARONOWICZ,
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 decision to modify a parenting plan and timesharing schedule. The modification was granted based on the mother's failure to meet the child's mental health needs, which constituted a substantial change in circumstances.
No, the trial court did not err. There was substantial, competent evidence to support the modification, as it was in the best interest of the child and warranted by a substantial, material, and unanticipated change of circumstances.
[1] A modification of a parenting plan and time-sharing schedule requires a showing of a substantial, material, and unanticipated change of circumstances.
[2] In determining parental responsibility, the best interest of the child shall be the primary consideration.
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“An appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s custody decision unless there is no substantial, competent evidence to support the decision.”
Establishes the standard of review for custody decisions on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court entered a temporary modification awarding the father majority timesharing and parental responsibility. This modification was based on …
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 Best Interests Of The Child cases and more on FLexlaw
GORDO, J.
The Mother1 appeals a final judgment granting the Father’s2 petition for modification for timesharing and parental responsibility of their one minor child. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A).
After entering a final judgment in 2014, the trial court entered a temporary modification in 2017 awarding the Father majority timesharing and parental responsibility due to the Mother’s failure to meet the minor child’s extensive mental health needs. “An appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s custody decision unless there is no substantial, competent evidence to support the decision.” Roberts v. Diaz, 343 So. 3d 156, 157 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), reh’g denied (Aug. 17, 2022) (quoting Winters v. Brown, 51 So. 3d 656, 658 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)). “[A] modification of a parenting plan and time-sharing schedule requires a showing of a substantial, material, and unanticipated change of circumstances.” § 61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2022).
To modify parental responsibility “the best interest of the child shall be the primary consideration.” § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2022). “The decision of the trial court comes to this court clothed in a presumption of correctness, and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate reversible error.” Corridon v. Corridon, 317 So. 3d 1198, 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (quoting Chirino v. Chirino, 710
So. 2d 696, 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)). While this Court does not have the benefit of a transcript here, the trial court’s order described that the Mother, the Father, the Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”) and the minor child’s therapist Dr. Howard Marcus, all testified at the hearing. The trial court’s well-written order found there was a substantial, material and unanticipated change of circumstances that warranted the timesharing and parental responsibility modification and was in the best interest of the minor child. Finding no error in the trial court’s detailed seventeen-page final judgment, as it thoroughly considered the modification pursuant to the requisite twenty statutory factors listed in section 61.13(3)(a)–(t), Florida Statutes, we affirm. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roberts v. Anyzeila Diaz, 343 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
-
Russell v. Aronowicz, 317 So. 3d 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
-
Russell v. Aronowicz (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Winters v. Brown, 51 So. 3d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Russell v. Aronowicz, 317 So. 3d 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
- Russell v. Aronowicz (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)