ROSE SPANO, APPELLANT,
v.
BB, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER NEXT BEST FRIEND, DENNIS BRUCE, 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 reversed a permanent domestic violence injunction against a mother regarding her sixteen-year-old daughter, finding the alleged incidents did not meet the statutory definition of domestic violence and the petitioner lacked reasonable cause to believe she faced imminent danger.
A permanent injunction for protection against domestic violence must not be issued unless the alleged incidents meet the statutory definition of domestic violence and the petitioner has reasonable cause to believe she faces imminent danger.
[1] Domestic violence proceedings should not serve as the primary forum for litigating custody, visitation, and support issues; instead, trial courts should enter temporary p…
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 intelligenceA mother sought an injunction for protection against domestic violence against her sixteen-year-old daughter, with the daughter represented by her nex…
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 Definition Of Domestic Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
CORTIÑAS, Judge.
We review a final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence enjoining appellant from having any contact with her sixteen year-old daughter. Because we find that the alleged incidents do not meet the definition of domestic violence, and because we find the petitioner has no reasonable cause to believe that she is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic violence, we find the trial court abused its discretion by issuing a permanent injunction. See § 741.30(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006). We therefore reverse the order entering the injunction.
We also express our agreement with the Second District that “domestic violence proceedings should not be allowed to become the primary forum in which custody, visitation and support issues are litigated.” O’Neill v. Stone, 721 So. 2d 393, 396 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Instead, where custody, visitation and support considerations are implicated in the context of alleged domestic violence, the better practice is for the trial court to enter a temporary order under Chapter 741 while directing the parties to litigate custody and visitation matters in family court. See id.; Cleary v. Cleary, 711 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
Reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss the domestic violence proceedings.
This opinion shall take effect immediately notwithstanding the filing of any motions for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zarudny v. Zarudny, 241 So. 3d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Cleary v. Maria Tereza de Castelo Branco Ferreira Cleary, 711 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- O'Neill v. Stone, 721 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)