KELLY DOHERTY, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER PADGETT, 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.
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of contempt against Dr. Doherty, but affirmed the order for make-up visitation.
The natural parents of an eight-year-old son disagreed about visitation rights. The trial court held Dr. Doherty in contempt and ordered make-up 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 Modification Of Court Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Kelly Doherty and William Christopher Padgett are the natural parents of an eight-year-old son. Dr. Doherty, who lives in Sarasota, Florida, and Dr. Padgett, who lives in Valley, Alabama, disagree about their respective visitation rights and responsibilities contained in the stipulated final judgment of paternity. Upon Dr. Padgett’s motion, the trial court held Dr. Doherty in contempt and ordered make-up visitation for Dr. Padgett. Dr. Doherty appeals the order finding her in contempt and the order on make-up visitation.
We affirm the order on make-up visitation without further discussion. We reverse the order finding Dr. Doherty in contempt because the evidence presented is insufficient to support such order. We write only to reinforce the trial court’s admonition that the prior orders of the court, including the final judgment, are to be obeyed and that neither party is free to unilaterally disregard an order of the court. A subsequent transgression may well result in an appropriate determination of contempt.
In the event that circumstances have changed, the appropriate course for either party is to determine whether a modification proceeding is desirable and, if so, to begin the process.
Here, the parties’ visitation practice has required their eight-year-old child to travel, most often by automobile, between Sarasota, Florida, and Valley, Alabama, a one-way drive of approximately 500 miles. A reasonable person could not conclude that this is a short drive, either in time or distance, for a child to undertake over the period of a weekend, particularly a round trip drive. We have strong concerns whether this practice is in the child’s best interest.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for vacation of the order finding Dr. Doherty in contempt.
ALTENBERND and WALLACE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cecemski v. Ashly Ann Cecemski, 954 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ties, some of which would likely cost money that he cannot afford. This particular schedule with its long drives and short visits is not likely to foster any type of meaningful relationship between the child and Mr. Cecemski. See Doherty v. Padgett, 942 So. 2d 464, 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (expressing concern that a long drive for a weekend visit wás not in the child’s best interest). Further, the plan to meet halfway does not appear to have been proposed by the parties, except to the extent that Mrs. Cecemski…