DONNA STEINER KOBLITZ, APPELLANT,
v.
CRAIG A. KOBLITZ, 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.
Donna Steiner Koblitz appealed a non-final trial court order approving a general master's report in a custody dispute with her ex-spouse Craig Koblitz. The appellate court reversed due to procedural due process violations in the general master hearing and remanded with comprehensive directives to protect the child's best interests, including appointment of a guardian ad litem and expedited custody determination.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's approval of the general master's report because the reference to the general master lacked the mother's required consent under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490(c), lacked a formal order of reference, and failed to provide sufficient notice to the out-of-state mother as required by Florida Statutes section 61.1312(2). The case was remanded with directions for the trial court to appoint a guardian ad litem, conduct further investigation, expedite custody determination, and implement protective measures including parental therapy and parenting instruction.
[1] A general master cannot hear a motion to amend a final judgment regarding child custody without the consent of a party to reference the matter, absent an order of referen…
[2] Notice to an out-of-state parent regarding child custody proceedings must comply with statutory requirements.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“the general master's hearing the father's motion to amend final judgment, seeking custody of the parties' child, without consent to reference by the mother as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490(c), without an order of reference to the general master and without sufficient notice to the out-of-state mother as required by section 61.1312(2), Florida Statutes”
Establishes the three procedural due process violations requiring reversal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves a custody dispute between two parents over their nine-year-old child. The father (Craig Koblitz) filed a motion to amend the final j…
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 Attorney Ad Litem cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a non-final order of the trial court, approving a general master’s report. There are due process and other considerations which require reversal but there is an additional serious consideration which must be addressed — the best interests of a nine-year-old child caught up in a family evidencing emotional dysfunction. Even the father’s counsel of record is now suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.
The due process and other considerations requiring reversal concern the general master’s hearing the father’s motion to amend final judgment, seeking custody of the parties’ child, without consent to reference by the mother as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490(c), without an order of reference to the general master and without sufficient notice to the out-of-state mother as required by section 61.1312(2), Florida Statutes.
More troubling is the bottom line — the best interests of the child. There has been no motion by counsel to expedite disposition in this court; and because we must reverse and remand with direction to begin again, the child’s uncertainty is extended.
On remand, the trial court is directed to appoint a guardian ad litem for the child and require such other investigation as the general master wisely recommended in her report, at the cost of the parties, given the history of drugs and/or alcohol in this case and the suspension of the father’s attorney. The trial court is further directed to expedite disposition of determination of custody, in light of the above history of parental emotional dysfunction and to use all of the inherent authority of the trial court, e.g., required therapy of parents and, if need be, child; parenting instruction; and contempt — whatever is necessary for the best interests of the child. Finally, given the suspension of the father’s attorney, the trial court is requested to consider appointing an attorney ad litem for the child at the cost of the parties.
DELL and POLEN, JJ., concur. ON NOTICE OF DISMISSAL
PER CURIAM.
Subsequent to the issuance of our opinion, we were informed by petitioner that the trial court granted petitioner’s relief by setting aside the general master’s report. Accordingly, that part of our opinion is clearly moot. Whether the opinion is entirely moot is a matter for the trial court to decide in the best interests of the child.
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and DELL and POLEN, JJ., concur.