STEPHEN LANE, APPELLANT,
v.
JULIE LANE, 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.
A Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's modification of a Michigan divorce decree that restricted a father's visitation and telephone contact with his son to supervised arrangements. The court held that while trial courts are not bound by parental agreements or expert opinions in custody matters, due process requires an evidentiary hearing where both parties can present and challenge evidence before restricting visitation rights.
While trial courts are not bound by parental agreements or expert opinions in custody and visitation matters, due process requires an evidentiary hearing where the court can observe the parties and witnesses and each side can present favorable evidence and refute unfavorable evidence before substantially restricting visitation rights.
[1] A trial court is not bound by agreements between parents or by the opinions of experts regarding child custody and visitation.
[2] A trial court's responsibility for determining child custody and visitation cannot be abdicated to parents or experts.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“It is undisputed, and should be indisputable, that a trial court's responsibility to the child cannot be abdicated to any parent, any expert. That heavy responsibility mandates that a court, is not bound by any agreement between parents, nor by the opinions of any expert or group of experts.”
Establishes that trial courts have discretion to reject parental agreements and expert opinions in custody matters
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties had agreed at mediation to be bound by a psychologist's opinion regarding supervised versus unsupervised visitation. Two psychologists bot…
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 Mediation Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
FEDER, RICHARD Y., Associate Judge.
Appellant-father appeals a judgment limiting his telephone contact with his son, restricting his visitation to supervised and otherwise domesticating a Michigan divorce decree which granted “reasonable” visitation.
The parties agreed at mediation to be bound by a psychologist’s opinion as to supervised versus unsupervised visitation. That opinion (despite a failure to interview the child) and a second opinion of another psychologist both favored un supervised. The court refused to accept the mediation agreement and also rejected both psychologists’ opinions. The court weighed the father’s pre-dissolution Michigan convictions for child molestation and shoplifting, as well as a recent head injury and continued sequelae.
It is undisputed, and should be indisputable, that a trial court’s responsibility to the child cannot be abdicated to any parent, any expert. That heavy responsibility mandates that a court, is not bound by any agreement between parents, nor by the opinions of any expert or group of experts. See Sedell v. Sedell, 100 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958); Bolton v. Gordon, 201 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). Nor can this court substitute its opinion for that of the trier of fact. Adams v. Adams, 376 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1109 (Fla.1980); Smith v. Smith, 55 So. 2d 735 (Fla.1951).
However, the rationale for such rule is the ability of the trial judge to observe the demeanor and personalities of the parties and witnesses, to discern delicate vibrations and hidden influences, and to interpret nuances that are invisible in a cold record. Custody and visitation are too important to both the child and parents to restrict a determination to a reading of unemotional and dispassionate words on a printed page.
In this case, the trial judge had no faces to read, no demeanor to evaluate, no searchlight of cross-examination to illuminate truth. The court had the printed reports of the experts and a novel time saver of some 14 pages of a “proffer” of stating the position of each parent. No hearing was held, where each side could present favorable evidence and refute the unfavorable. Without such opportunity, regardless of its “time consumption,” there has been a deprivation of due process.
The matter is, therefore, reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine what visitation is in the best interest of the child.
WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Dorsett v. Granvill Dorsett, 902 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…is undisputed, and should be indisputable, that a trial court’s responsibility to the child cannot be abdicated to any parent, any expert. That heavy responsibility mandates that a court is not bound by any agreement between parents.” Lane v. Lane, 599 So. 2d 218, 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); see, e.g., Sotoloff v. Sotoloff, 745 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that a custodial parent may not contract away a child’s right to support). With regard to exclusive possession of the marital home, this court ha…
-
Keaton v. Keaton, 634 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…find no abuse of discretion in the record before us. Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in granting the wife primary physical custody of their child. The court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the trier of fact. Lane v. Lane, 599 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Custody and visitation cannot be simply determined by a reading of dispassionate words on a page. Id. at 219. We believe that sufficient evidence was introduced that would support the trial court’s findings. Appellant finally c…
-
Ronad McALISTER v. Shaver, 633 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…in an order when sole parental responsibility is awarded. § 61.-13(2)(b)2.b, Fla.Stat. (1991). The court’s responsibility to the child cannot be abdicated to any parent or expert. A court is not bound by any agreement between parents. Lane v. Lane, 599 So. 2d 218, 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Bolton v. Gordon, 201 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); Sedell v. Sedell, 100 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). A trial court has the authority to decline to follow a settlement agreement between the parties relating to child c…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maxine Florence Sedell (now Maxine Sedell White) v. Sedell, 100 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Harland Morrison Adams v. Adams, 376 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Bolton v. Patricia H. (Bolton) Gordon, 201 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)