MICHELLE C. SHUGAR, PETITIONER,
v.
JOEL K. SHUGAR, RESPONDENT
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.
The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by issuing orders granting the guardian ad litem (GAL) authority to make all decisions regarding child visitation with parents.
Michelle C. Shugar petitioned for a writ of certiorari, contending the trial court improperly granted the guardian ad litem (GAL) authority to make al…
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 Delegation Of Judicial Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Michelle C. Shugar contends in her petition for writ of certiorari that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by issuing three orders ruling that the guardian ad litem (GAL), appointed for the benefit of the parties’ minor son, has the authority to make all decisions regarding visitation of the child with his parents. We grant the petition and remand for further proceedings.
Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2005), sets forth the trial court’s obligations when determining custody and visitation matters. Section 61.13(2)(a), provides that “[t]he court shall have jurisdiction to determine custody”; subsection (2)(b)(l) requires “[t]he court [to] determine all matters relating to custody of each minor child of the parties in accordance with the best interests of the child”; and subsection (2)(b)2.b. directs “[t]he court ” to determine visitation rights of a parent when it has ordered sole parental responsibility to the other parent.1 (Emphasis added.)
Courts may not delegate their statutory authority to determine visitation to GALs, attorneys, or experts. See, e.g., McAlister v. Shaver, 633 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Wattles v. Wattles, 631 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Roski v. Roski, 730 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Scaringe v. Herrick, 711 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (Blue, J., specially concurring). Cf. Singleton v. State, 582 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
The petition is GRANTED.
ERVIN, PADOVANO and HAWKES, JJ., concur. . Section 61.403, Florida Statutes (2005), outlines the powers and authority of a GAL. It requires the GAL to work closely with the court to obtain evidence and information, and authorizes the GAL to make recommenda-lions and reports to the court. None of the provisions authorizes the GAL to make independent decisions that are binding on the parties.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Srinath Subramanian v. Veena Subramanian, 239 So. 3d 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Ronad McALISTER v. Shaver, 633 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Wattles v. Wattles, 631 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Scaringe v. Penni Scaringe Herrick, 711 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Singleton v. State, 582 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Roski v. Roski, 730 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)