WALLACE JEWELL DENSON, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2005)
  …ake this determination. Several district courts of appeal have provided slight variations of the substantial change test. The substantial change test has been described as both a two-part and a three-part test. For example, in Voorhies v. Voorhies, 705 So. 2d 1064, 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), the First District stated that the party seeking a-modification carries the extraordinary burden of proving (1) a substantial and material change in circumstances, and (2) that the best interests of the child will be promo…
• Cooper v. Gress, 854 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
  …ted in the record, that rotating custody arrangements never work, does not justify modifying the custody plan, absent a substantial change of circumstances resulting in the modification’s being in the children’s best interests. Voorhies v. Voorhies, 705 So. 2d 1064, 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). There is no bright-line rule disfavoring rotating-custody plans, yet the instant trial court appears to have crafted one. The Third District Court in Quinn v. Settel, 682 So. 2d 617, 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), recognized that…
• Holland v. Holland, 140 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
  …oward v. Ziegler, 40 So. 2d 776, 777 (Fla.1949). Second, the trial court erred by modifying the parties’ time-sharing agreement without evidence to show a substantial change in circumstances. See § 61.18(3), Fla. Stat. (2013); Voorhies v. Voorhies, 705 So. 2d 1064, 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). It is well settled that a trial court abuses its discretion in modifying a parenting plan and time-sharing schedule when the record contains no evidence that such a modification is supported by a substantial, material, una…

Authorities Cited

• Gissendanner v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
• Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)