LESLIE FELICIANO, APPELLANT,
v.
DIEGO FELICIANO, 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 mediation agreement on child support and visitation may be set aside if not in the children's best interests, even if other provisions are enforceable; trial court erred in excluding evidence on this issue.
A trial court may set aside a mediation agreement regarding child support, custody, and visitation if the agreement is not in the best interests of the children, notwithstanding enforceability rules applicable to alimony and property provisions.
[1] A mediation agreement regarding child support, custody, and visitation may be set aside if not in the best interests of the children, even though alimony and marital prop…
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 intelligenceAfter reaching a mediation agreement in a dissolution case, the wife sought to set it aside, contending that the agreed child support amount and 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 Visitation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After the parties signed an agreement reached through the mediation process, the wife moved to set it aside prior to its being incorporated in a dissolution judgment. Among other things, she contended that the amount of child support she had agreed to and the visitation provision were not in the best interests of their two-year-old triplets. At an evidentiary hearing, the trial court refused to admit evidence relevant to the child support and visitation, concluding that those portions of the mediation agreement were subject to the same enforceability test as the alimony and marital property provisions. See Casto v. Casto, 508 So. 2d 330 (Fla.1987).
Casto, however, is not dispositive on child support, custody, and visitation, and a trial court may still set an agreement aside in regard to those issues if the agreement is not in the best interest of the children. Lane v. Lane, 599 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Kennedy v. Kennedy, 583 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
We therefore reverse for the issues of child support and visitation to be reconsidered after the trial court admits evidence relevant to the best interests of the children, which was erroneously excluded in the evidentiary hearing.
GUNTHER, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Yitzhari v. Eli Yitzhari, 906 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…did not recall that she had advised the parties that she would either issue her own judgment or call them together for an oral ruling. . This would include, if appropriate, consideration of issues relating to custody. E.g., Feliciano v. Feliciano, 674 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(confirming that a trial court is not bound by an agreement regarding child support, custody, and visitation where it determines that it is not in the best interests of the children); Jones v. Jones, 674 So. 2d 770, 774 (Fla. 5th…
-
Puglisi v. Puglisi, 135 So. 3d 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…tween parents, nor by the opinions of any expert or group of experts.”). The “best interests” of the child takes predominance over any agreement between the parents and must be independently determined by the trial court. See Feliciano v. Feliciano, 674 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (confirming that trial court is not bound by agreement regarding child support, custody and visitation where it determines that is not in best interests of children); Jones v. Jones, 674 So. 2d 770, 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (reite…
-
Trang Ngoan LE v. Tung Phuong Nguyen, 98 So. 3d 600 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…nt, 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.” Lane v. Lane, 599 So. 2d 218, 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); see Feliciano v. Feliciano, 674 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (confirming that trial court is not bound by agreement regarding child support, custody, and visitation where it determines that it is not in best interests of children). Instead, the trial court is required to “determine all mat…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Casto v. Casto, 508 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1987)
- Lane v. Lane, 599 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Kennedy v. Leisa A. Kennedy, 583 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)