DAVID HANCOCK, APPELLANT,
v.
COLLEEN HANCOCK, 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 family law appeal, the former husband challenges a final judgment of dissolution that awarded the parties joint parental responsibility but failed to designate which parent would have decision-making authority over the child's education. The court affirms the judgment but remands for the trial court to determine who will be responsible for educational decisions regarding the minor child.
The court affirmed the judgment awarding joint parental responsibility but reversed and remanded for the trial court to designate which parent should have responsibility for decisions concerning the child's education, as permitted under Florida Statute § 61.13(2)(b)2.a.
[1] A trial court may grant one parent ultimate responsibility over specific aspects of a child's welfare, such as education, even when ordering shared parental responsibilit…
[2] A trial court is not required to designate a specific school for a child if it lacks sufficient information to make such a decision.
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“Even when granting shared parental responsibility, the trial court may grant one parent the ultimate responsibility over specific aspects of the child's welfare, such as education, when it is in the best interest of the child.”
Establishes the legal principle that shared parental responsibility does not preclude designating one parent with decision-making authority over specific matters like education.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were previously married and had a minor son. During the child's early education, the former wife home-schooled him through the eighth grad…
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 Sole Parental Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
MAY, J.
The former husband appeals a final judgment of dissolution. He raises three issues. We affirm, but remand the case to the trial court to decide which of the parents will be responsible for making educational decisions concerning the minor child, pursuant to section 61.13(2)(b)2.a, Florida Statutes (2004).
In the original petition for dissolution of marriage, the former husband requested the court to award shared parental responsibility. In his amended petition, the former husband requested the court “to require the Wife to enroll the minor child in a private [or] public school.” In his second amended petition, the former husband expressed his concern over the former wife’s home-schooling of the child. However, he did not request the court to designate which parent is responsible for making decisions concerning the child’s education.
In her original counter-petition, the former wife sought shared parental responsibility and to be designated the primary residential parent. In her amended counter-petition, she specifically requested the “court find that it is in the best interests of the child that the Wife be given sole responsibility regarding the child’s educational needs.”
During the trial, evidence revealed the former wife had home schooled her son through the eighth grade. An expert witness called by the former husband opined that the son had not completed the eighth grade and that he would benefit from a more traditional school environment.
In the final judgment of dissolution, the court ordered joint parental responsibility, but failed to address the child’s educational needs. The former husband filed a motion for rehearing in which he again requested the court to address the child’s educational needs, specifically whether the former wife would be permitted to continue home schooling. In its order denying the motion for a new trial, the trial court indicated that it had ordered shared parental responsibility, which required the parents to work together on the issue of the child’s education.
We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to decline to order a specific school for the child as the court did not believe it had sufficient information with which to make a decision. However, the former husband and wife do not agree on whether home schooling is in the best interests of their son.
Even when granting shared parental responsibility, the trial court may grant one parent the ultimate responsibility over specific aspects of the child’s welfare, such as education, when it is in the best interest of the child. See § 61.13(2)(b)2.a, Fla. Stat. (2004).
One thing is clear, the parties do not agree regarding the child’s education. The couple had mutually agreed the former wife would stay at home and home-school the child during his early education. The former husband requested the court to address the home-schooling issue, and the former wife requested the court to determine who would be responsible for decisions relating to the child’s education. While not specifically requesting sole responsibility for the child’s education, the former husband presented expert testimony concerning the best education for the child. Given these circumstances, we remand the case for the trial court to designate which parent should be given the responsibility for decisions concerning the child’s education as part of the order of shared parental responsibility.
Affirmed and Remanded.
STEVENSON, C.J,, and WARNER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Watt v. Watt, 966 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…Fla. Stat. If the parties reach an impasse, then the dispute is presented to the court for resolution and the test to be applied is the best interests of the child. See Sotnick v. Sotnick, 650 So. 2d 157, 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Hancock v. Hancock, 915 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); see also Vazquez v. Vazquez, 443 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (trial court properly exercised its discretion under the shared parental responsibility statute by ordering that children would attend school chosen by father). In…