DOUGLAS PAUL MATHENY, APPELLANT,
v.
LISA RACHELLE BRIGGS, 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.
In this paternity case, Matheny appeals a trial court judgment establishing paternity, parental responsibility, and child support. The appellate court affirmed the visitation order but reversed and remanded the child support calculation due to the trial court's erroneous refusal to correct a miscalculation despite both parties' motions for rehearing.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in creating a visitation schedule that diverged from the custody evaluator's recommendation, and therefore the visitation order is affirmed. However, the trial court erred in refusing to correct the child support miscalculation and the matter is remanded for recalculation of child support and arrears.
[1] A trial court has discretion to establish a visitation schedule in compliance with the evidence and Florida law.
[2] A trial court has discretion to decline to follow the recommendations of a custody evaluator regarding visitation.
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“It is the responsibility of the trial court to establish a visitation schedule in compliance with the evidence and in accordance with Florida law.”
Establishes the standard for evaluating visitation orders on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court established paternity of a minor child of Matheny (father) and Lisa Rachelle Briggs (mother). The trial court entered a detailed 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 Schedule cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, J.
Douglas Paul Matheny appeals a judgment establishing paternity, parental responsibility, and child support. There are only two issues that merit discussion: visitation and calculation of child support. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The trial court established the paternity of the minor child of Matheny (“father”) and Lisa Rachelle Briggs (“mother”). On appeal, the father argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it entered a detailed visitation order that varied from the visitation recommendation of a licensed psychologist who was appointed by the court as a custody evaluator. It is the responsibility of the trial court to establish a visitation schedule in compliance with the evidence and in accordance with Florida law. Wattles v. Wattles, 631 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); see also Adamson v. Chavis, 672 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The creation of a visitation schedule is within a trial court’s discretion. Lewis v. Lewis, 665 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Moreover, this court has held that it is within a trial court’s discretion to decline to follow a stipulated visitation schedule. See Kelley v. Kelley, 656 So. 2d 1343, 1346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). If it is within the trial court’s discretion to decline to follow a stipulated visitation order, then it is also within the trial court’s discretion to decline to follow the recommendations of a custody evaluator. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we find no abuse of discretion.
The parties agree that the trial court erred when it refused to modify the amount the father was ordered to pay for child support and arrearage. The miscalculation was brought to the trial court’s attention in motions for rehearing filed by both parties. In their motions, the parties moved the court to correct the miscalculation of child support, but the trial court denied the motions without explanation. We affirm the judgment except that we reverse the child support portion of the judgment and remand for a redetermination of child support and arrears.
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED to redetermine child support and arrears.
SAWAYA, C.J. and MONACO, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wattles v. Wattles, 631 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Lewis v. Ester Lewis, 665 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Kelley v. Kelley, 656 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Adamson v. Chavis, 672 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)