CHRISTINE MCARDLE, APPELLANT,
v.
LEO F. MCARDLE, JR., 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.
Christine McArdle appealed a custody modification that transferred primary residential custody of the parties' son to the father, denied her visitation with their daughter unless the daughter consents, and required her to pay child support based on imputed income. The court affirmed the custody change and child support award but reversed the visitation denial, holding that a noncustodial parent has a due process right to visitation absent proof of unfitness, extreme circumstances, or adverse effect on the child's welfare.
A noncustodial parent has a due process right to reasonable visitation with a child unless the trial court makes specific findings that the parent is unfit, extreme circumstances preclude visitation, or visitation would adversely affect the child's welfare. The trial court may not condition visitation unilaterally on the child's consent without such findings.
[1] A trial court may not deny a noncustodial parent visitation with a child unless there is proof of extreme circumstances or a finding that visitation will adversely affect…
[2] A trial court's order denying visitation based solely on a fifteen-year-old child's unilateral consent is reversible error absent findings of parental unfitness, extreme…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“[t]he noncustodial parent should be granted reasonable visitation with a child unless there is proof of extreme circumstances, or the trial court finds that the visitation will adversely affect the welfare of the child.”
Establishes the legal standard governing visitation rights for noncustodial parents
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChristine McArdle and Leo F. McArdle, Jr. had two children together. The trial court modified custody to award primary residential custody of their so…
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 Parental Visitation Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Christine McArdle appeals a modification of custody that transfers primary residential custody of the parties’ son to his father, denies appellant visitation with their daughter unless the daughter consents, and requires appellant to pay child support based upon imputed income. We affirm the change of custody and the award of child support without discussion. However, we reverse the denial of visitation with the daughter unless the daughter consents and remand for further proceedings.
In the final order, the trial court stated:
Given the Former Wife’s thwarted attempt at any reconciliation with her daughter, ... and effectively writing her off, the Court will not award the Former Wife visitation with her at this time. [The daughter] is at an age [fifteen-years-old] where she can understand enough and make choices of her own. She is of sufficient maturity to understand the consequences of the same. If she chooses to visit with her mother, she may do so. If she chooses not to do so, she need not.
As noted in Johnston v. Boram, 386 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), “[t]he noncustodial parent should be granted reasonable visitation with a child unless there is proof of extreme circumstances, or the trial court finds that the visitation will adversely affect the welfare of the child.” Id. at 1230; see also Kent v. Burdick, 573 So. 2d 61, 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (noting that absent a finding from the trial court that a parent is unfit, the parent has a due process right to maintain a parental relationship with the child). Here, the order does not state that appellant is unfit, that extreme circumstances preclude visitation, or that visitation would adversely affect the welfare of the daughter. We therefore reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to reconsider appellant’s request for visitation. In the event the trial court determines that the mother should have visitation, the trial court shall set forth the conditions so that they are not unilaterally dependent upon the consent of the daughter. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
DELL, POLEN and GROSS, JJ. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Maggieruth (Boram) Johnston v. Forrest Ray Boram, 386 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Kent v. Jayne Bumpers Burdick and Laurence Burdick, 573 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)