DAWN FAULKNER PEARSON, APPELLANT,
v.
LANCE WILLIAM PEARSON, 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 a contempt finding for violating a visitation provision but reversed the provision allowing immediate temporary custody change for non-compliance, holding that such automatic custody changes require proper procedures.
A trial court may find a parent in willful contempt for violating visitation provisions, but cannot impose an automatic temporary custody change as a sanction without following proper procedures.
[1] An automatic temporary custody change cannot be imposed as a sanction for contempt of a visitation order without following proper procedures.
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 intelligenceDawn Pearson was found in contempt for violating a visitation provision in her divorce decree. The trial court conducted an in camera interview with t…
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 Willful Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Dawn Pearson appeals an order finding her in willful contempt for violating a visitation provision in the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. On appeal, Ms. Pearson takes issue with the trial court’s in camera interview of the child during the hearing on the motion for contempt. However, Ms. Pearson made no objection to the interview before the trial court, either before or after it occurred. While we generally discourage such a procedure — a procedure which resulted in the disqualification of the trial judge in this proceeding — we do not find fundamental error in this record based upon the in camera interview.
We affirm the finding of contempt and the provisions requiring Ms. Pearson to pay Mr. Pearson the sum of $135.09 and to provide Mr. Pearson make-up visitation. We reverse, however, that portion of the order which calls for an immediate temporary change in custody should Ms. Pearson fail to comply with the order. See, e.g., LaLoggia-VonHegel v. VonHegel, 732 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). On re mand, that provision shall be stricken from the order. The stay previously entered by this court is lifted as of the date of this opinion.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ALTENBERND, C.J., and CASANUEVA and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.