ROBERT B. GOODMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
JILL A. GOODMAN, APPELLEE
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 court held that a trial court's discretion to limit child visitation requires evidentiary support for the necessity of such restrictions.
Following separation, the wife moved with the parties' three children to Ohio. The final dissolution judgment granted the husband liberal access but l…
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 Child Visitation cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
The husband in this dissolution of marriage proceeding challenges the final judgment which limits visitation with his minor children to the wife’s state of residence and awards the wife rehabilitative and permanent periodic alimony, child support, and attorney’s fees. He raises seven points on appeal. We find merit only in his contention that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting visitation of the parties’ oldest child to the wife's state of residence.
The parties have three children: Noah, who is presently ten years old, and twins, Spencer and Jeremy, who are two years old. Following the parties’ separation, the wife decided to move with the children to Ohio, where her parents reside.
In the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the trial court granted the husband liberal access to the minor children; however, it limited visitation with the children to the wife’s state of residence.
Although we agree with the trial court that the twins are too young to travel to visit their father in Florida, we believe that the limitation on visitation as to the oldest child is unnecessarily restrictive.
A trial court has broad discretion to limit visitation as may be necessary to protect the welfare of the children; however, its decision to impose restrictions on visitation must be supported by some evidence in the record showing that such restrictions are necessary.
Accordingly, we strike the provision in the final judgment which limits the husband’s visitation with the oldest child to the mother’s state of residence. The time schedule for visitation set out in the final judgment and all other provisions therein are not affected by this opinion.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coyne v. Coyne, 895 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…tation when necessary to protect the welfare of the children, restrictions on visitation should be supported by some evidence in the record showing that they are necessary. Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 614 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Goodman v. Goodman, 571 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). The facts stated by the trial court in the final judgment do not support the restriction which requires that the Former Husband’s visitation with the children take place in Canada without considering the availability of “tourist…1 / 2
-
Kent v. Jayne Bumpers Burdick and Laurence Burdick, 591 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…p of Wilkes, 501 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Paul v. Lusco, 530 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Significantly, the Burdicks’ evidence does not even remotely suggest unfitness on the part of Mr. Kent. [*997] Our sister court, in Goodman v. Goodman, 571 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), held that “a trial court has broad discretion to limit visitation as may be necessary to protect the welfare of the children; however, its decision to impose restrictions on visitation must be supported by some evidence in the re…
-
Adamson v. Chavis, 672 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…rine is error. The decision to impose limitations on visitation, moreover, must be supported by some evidence in the record showing that the restrictions are necessary. Kent v. Burdick, 591 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (citing Goodman v. Goodman, 571 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)). The instant court’s determination to limit visitation was based solely on the youth of the child. There was no testimony regarding any need to restrict the father’s opportunity for meaningful visitation with his child. The final…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence