NORMA KASDORF, APPELLANT,
v.
RONALD KASDORF, 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 wife challenged the trial court's award of primary residential custody to the husband and his authority over medical/dental decisions. The appellate court affirmed, finding substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings regarding the wife's credibility and her likely interference with the husband's visitation rights.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding primary residential custody to the husband or in granting him ultimate decision-making authority over medical and dental decisions. The cross-petitions for custody, coupled with supporting evidence, provided sufficient notice that medical/dental decisions would be at issue.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in awarding primary residential custody to a parent when there is record support for the finding that the other parent would s…
[2] A trial court may grant one parent ultimate decision-making authority over specific aspects of a child's welfare, such as medical and dental care, when it is in the child…
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“There was competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court finding that the wife, if awarded primary residential custody, would seek to sabotage the husband's visitation with the children, was not completely truthful to the doctor who performed a custody evaluation in describing her conduct and relationship with the children, and lacked the inclination to foster a loving relationship between the father and the children.”
Establishes the evidentiary basis for the trial court's award of custody to the husband and the court's rejection of the wife's credibility.
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 in dissolution proceedings and both sought primary residential custody of their children. The trial court found that the wife would l…
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 Ultimate Decision-Making Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The wife appeals a final judgment of dissolution awarding primary residential custody and the ultimate decision making authority concerning medical/dental decisions to the husband. Each side sought primary residential custody. There is record support for the award of primary residential custody to the husband. There was competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court finding that the wife, if awarded primary residential custody, would seek to sabotage the husband’s visitation with the children, was not completely truthful to the doctor who performed a custody evaluation in describing her conduct and relationship with the children, and lacked the inclination to foster a loving relationship between the father and the children. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in applying these findings to the statutory factors of section 61.13, Florida Statutes.
The wife raises an issue for the first time on appeal that the husband did not specifically plead to have the ultimate decision making authority over the children’s medical and dental decisions. Nevertheless, the record supports the trial court’s decision that “due to the acrimony between the parties primarily caused by the wife and her unnecessarily taking the children to doctors for medical treatment, the husband shall have ultimate decision making authority concerning medical/dental decisions regarding both children.”
Section 61.13, Florida Statutes, provides:
In ordering shared parental responsibility, the court may consider the expressed desires of the parents and may grant to one party the ultimate responsibility over specific aspects of the child’s welfare or may divide those responsibilities between the parties based on the best interests of the child. Areas of responsibility may include primary residence, education, medical and dental care, and any other responsibilities that the court finds unique to a particular family.
§ 61.13(2)(b)2.a., Fla. Stat. We deem the cross-petitions for primary residential parenting, coupled with support for the decision in evidence, to be sufficient notice that the medical/dental decisions would be at issue. We cannot conclude on this record that there was either an abuse of discretion in awarding primary residential custody, or in giving the husband ultimate decision making medical/dental decisions. Therefore, the final judgment is affirmed.
POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur. STONE, J., dissents with opinion.
STONE, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent as to the provision awarding sole responsibility concerning medical/dental decision on the authority of McKeever v. McKeever, 792 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Racquel Schot v. Schot, 273 So. 3d 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…child stopped having explosive diarrhea and began to gain weight. The change in circumstances due to the failure to thrive diagnosis supports modification of both timesharing and ultimate healthcare decision-making. See Kasdorf v. Kasdorf, 931 So. 2d 257, 258-59 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (finding no abuse of discretion in awarding the husband ultimate decision-making authority over the children’s medical and dental decisions “due to the acrimony between the parties primarily caused by the wife and her…
-
Natali v. Natali, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2355 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…thing speculative or uncertain about the child in this case starting kindergarten" and "[s]uch an event is by definition a reasonably and objectively anticipated change in circumstances that will occur at a time certain"); - 7 - Kasdorf v. Kasdorf, 931 So. 2d 257, 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (affirming family court's finding that the wife, if awarded primary residential custody, would attempt to sabotage the husband's visitation with their children). Indeed, Florida Statute section 61.13(3)'s nonexhaustive list…
-
Salituri v. Salituri, 184 So. 3d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…ssue went beyond anything requested in the pleadings and beyond the evidence presented at trial. See McDonald v. McDonald, 732 So. 2d 505, 506 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Krift v. Obenour, 152 So. 3d 645, 647-48 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); cf. Kasdorf v. Kasdorf, 931 So. 2d 257, 258-59 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding that the record supported the trial court’s ruling that the husband have “ultimate decision making authority” over children’s medical and dental decisions). On the contested issue of the husband’s income, the t…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McKEEVER v. McKEEVER, 792 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)