DAVID HIGGINBOTHAM, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIANNE HIGGINBOTHAM N/K/A MARIANNE VACCHIO, 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 Florida appellate court affirmed a trial court's dissolution of marriage judgment but expressed significant concern about the $20,000 cost of a court-ordered parenting assessment, which depleted 24% of the parties' combined gross annual income in a modest-asset case involving three minor children.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment but held that the cost of the parenting assessment was excessive and wasteful of family resources needed for the children's welfare. The court expressed that more cost-effective methods should be developed, including imposing financial caps on expert assessments with appropriate court direction to limit unnecessary testing.
[1] A trial court should consider the financial resources of the parties when ordering a parenting assessment in a dissolution of marriage case.
[2] In dissolution of marriage cases, courts should explore cost-effective methods for conducting parenting assessments to preserve family resources for the children's welfar…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“If a judicial system is trying to reach a child placement decision in the best interest of the child, it is difficult to grasp how it is in the best interest of the child to deplete the resources of the family to this extent.”
Establishes the court's core concern that expensive assessments contradict the stated goal of protecting children's welfare by reducing family resources.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid and Marianne Higginbotham were engaged in a seven-year marriage dissolution involving three minor children and modest assets. The husband's gros…
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 Judicial Economy cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
We affirm the decision of the trial court in this matter but write on areas that otherwise cause us concern.
Dissolution of marriage cases are fraught with anxiety, emotion, and uncertainty. This case involves a seven-year marriage with three minor children. The issues were neither complex nor voluminous.
This court has previously expressed concern about parties spending limited resources that are otherwise needed for the welfare of the children. See Wrona v. Wrona, 592 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Here, the trial court1 signed a stipulated order appointing a licensed psychologist to perform a parenting assessment, pursuant to section 61.20, Florida Statutes (2002). See Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.363. The psychologist selected was from Manatee County. The Husband’s gross monthly income was $5446 including overtime, and the Wife’s gross monthly income was $1560. The assets of the parties were modest. The cost of the twenty-nine-page parenting assessment was $20,000. Scant mention was made of the assessment in the amended final judgment.
If a judicial system is trying to reach a child placement decision in the best interest of the child, it is difficult to grasp how it is in the best interest of the child to deplete the resources of the family to this extent. The concept should be to devise a more cost-effective way of doing a parenting assessment or fashion a court order that would set a financial cap on the amount to be expended, with appropriate directions to the party performing the assessment. The expert, without guidance from the court, may feel compelled to perform an array of tests not otherwise necessary. In fact, the parenting assessment in question delineated that fourteen psychological tests were performed regarding the parents and seven psychological tests were performed regarding two of the parties’ three children.
The cost of the parenting assessment here was 24% of the parties’ combined gross annual income and 100% of the parties’ net worth as reflected on the Husband’s financial affidavit.
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND, C.J., and STRINGER, J., concur. . Judge Steinbeck was not the judge assigned to the case when the order in question was entered.