OWEN RUSSELL, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
SHEILA M. RUSSELL, N/K/A SHEILA M. SCHOTT, 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 affirmed the trial court's termination of the father's visitation rights but reversed and remanded regarding the characterization of paternal grandparent visitation, which the trial court mistakenly labeled as supervised when it was actually unsupervised.
The trial court's termination of the father's visitation rights is affirmed, but the court must correct its mischaracterization of paternal grandparent visitation from supervised to unsupervised.
[1] A trial court's characterization of visitation rights in a modification order must accurately reflect the terms awarded in prior orders, and mischaracterization requires…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage case, the trial court terminated the appellant/former husband's visitation rights and awarded paternal grandparents visit…
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 Modification Of Visitation Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We find competent substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s order temporarily terminating appellant/former husband’s visitation rights and affirm on this point without further comment.
With respect to the second issue raised on appeal, that of paternal grandparent visitation, there is some confusion in the record. In a Supplemental Order1 entered subsequently to the Final Judgment of Dissolution but prior to the Order Modifying Final Judgment, which modification is the subject of this appeal, the trial court awarded the paternal grandparents unsupervised visitation with the children of the parties. In its Order Modifying Final Judgment, the trial court referred to the grandparent visitation awarded in the earlier Supplemental Order as “supervised” when, in fact, it was unsupervised. We believe this to have been done inadvertently but we are obliged to reverse and remand the case to the trial court for correction of this mischaracterization.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
ERVIN, JOANOS and MINER, JJ., concur. . This Supplemental Order is not included in the record before us. However, it is appended to appellant's brief and portions of the order are quoted in the report of the Guardian Ad Litem, which is in the record.