KIMBERLY F. MOONEY, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM A. MOONEY, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed trial court's determination that neither party bore a heightened burden of proof in a child custody matter where the parties had agreed to a rotating custody arrangement pending the child's entry into kindergarten.
When parties agree that a future event constitutes a substantial change in circumstances requiring custody redetermination, neither party bears a heightened burden of proof in the initial custody determination.
[1] When parties to a dissolution agree that a future event constitutes a substantial change in circumstances requiring custody redetermination, the initial custody determina…
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 intelligenceKimberly and William Mooney divorced with a custody arrangement providing the minor child would alternate weekly between parents until the summer befo…
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 Rotating Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, J.
Kimberly Mooney appeals from a final order granting primary physical custody of the parties’ minor child to the father, William Mooney. Appellant raises one issue: Whether the trial court erred in determining that neither party bore a higher burden of proof in the determination of child custody in this case.
We find no error in this regard based upon the custody arrangement between the parties, which was incorporated in the final judgment of dissolution, which established that the minor child would spend one week with the former husband and one week with the former wife “until the summer before the minor child begins kindergarten,” when the arrangement would be readdressed.
We find this situation to be essentially indistinguishable from the situation in Skirko v. Skirko, 677 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), where the court affirmed the trial court’s treatment of a modification of custody as if it were an initial custody determination when the parties had previously had rotating custody, and both sides agreed that the mother’s planned move to New Jersey constituted a substantial change in circumstances. In the instant case, the parties agreed at the time of dissolution that the beginning of school would constitute a change of circumstances which would require the custody issue to be readdressed.
Therefore, we affirm.
KAHN and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2005)…ents alternate custody of the child. See Wade, 872 So. 2d at 954. . The substantial change test applies unless the judgment otherwise provides for the standard that should be applied when one party seeks a modification. See, e.g., Mooney v. Mooney, 729 So. 2d 1015, 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (parents agreed that beginning of school would constitute a change in circumstances which would require custody to be readdressed); Greene v. Suhor, 783 So. 2d 290, 290-91 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (custody order provided that ei…
-
Cooper v. Gress, 854 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…using “best interests” standard, where original custody order provided for rotating custody and expressly provided that either parent could seek reconsideration of residential-custody issue without showing change in circumstances); Mooney v. Mooney, 729 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (finding neither party bore higher burden of proof in custody modification proceeding, where final judgment of dissolution had provided for weekly rotating custody, and parties had agreed originally that child’s starting kinderga…
-
Segarra v. Segarra, 947 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…e father was not required to satisfy the substantial change test where agreement provided that either party could apply for change in custody when child began kindergarten without demonstrating substantial change in circumstances); Mooney v. Mooney, 729 So. 2d 1015, 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)(same). However, in this case, the final judgment did specifically require the parties to attend mediation in order to revise the visitation schedule when the child began formal schooling. Because the Father failed to compl…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Skirko v. Skirko, 677 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)