SUZANNE BELL F/K/A SUZANNE HILL, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES W. HILL, 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.
Ms. Bell appealed a postdissolution order modifying her visitation agreement with the father of their child. The appellate court reversed the visitation modification and remanded for reconsideration under the proper legal standard, finding the trial court failed to make necessary findings regarding substantial change in circumstances and the child's best interest.
The trial court's modification of visitation must be reversed and remanded because the order lacks the required findings of a substantial change in circumstances and the child's best interest. The trial court must reconsider the evidence under the correct legal standard on remand.
[1] A modification of a prior visitation order requires a finding of a substantial change in circumstances since the entry of the operative order.
[2] A modification of a prior visitation order requires a finding that the modification is in the best interest of the child.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Critically absent from the modification order is a finding that there had been a substantial change in circumstances subsequent to the entry of the operative visitation schedule and that a change in visitation was in the best interest of the child, and we cannot intuit those findings from this record.”
Establishes the core deficiency in the trial court's order—the absence of required findings for modification.
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 had one child born in December 1993 and divorced in 1995 when the child was about one year old. Their final judgment incorporated a detail…
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 Visitation cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Suzanne Bell, the former wife of Charles W. Hill, appeals from a postdissolution order that modified the parties’ visitation agreement concerning their child. Although the postdissolution order contains several edicts, in this appeal Ms. Bell challenges only that portion of the postdissolution order that modified visitation. We reverse the postdissolution order to the extent that it modified visitation, and we remand for further proceedings.
During their marriage, the parties had one child who was born in December 1993. In 1995, when their child was a little over a year old, the parties’ marriage was dissolved. The final judgment of dissolution of marriage incorporated a marital settlement agreement in which the parties set forth a detailed visitation schedule.
In May 2006, eleven years after the dissolution, Mr. Hill filed a supplemental petition for modification in which he sought, among other things, a change of custody of the parties’ minor child. A hearing on Mr. Hill’s petition for modification of custody was held on December 19, 2006. Ms. Bell’s attorney filed a motion for continuance on the morning of the hearing. The motion for a continuance was denied. Neither Ms. Bell nor her attorney appeared at the hearing.
Rather than modifying custody, the trial court modified visitation by awarding Mr. Hill visitation with the parties’ child every weekend. It is not entirely clear what standard the trial court applied in reaching its decision, and the record before this court suggests that the trial court perhaps applied an incorrect standard. Critically absent from the modification order is a finding that there had been a substantial change in circumstances subsequent to the entry of the operative visitation schedule and that a change in visitation was in the best interest of the child, and we cannot intuit those findings from this record.
The trial court found that the prior visitation schedule was “no longer appropriate.” The trial court made several additional findings, but none of those findings specifically address a substantial change in circumstances or the best interest of the child. Indeed, some of those findings suggest that the modification of visitation might have been intended as a sanction against Ms. Bell for her recalcitrant actions. If that was the trial court’s intent, the record does not support such a sanction.
Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the postdissolution order that modified visitation and remand for further consideration. On remand, the trial court must reconsider the evidence under the correct legal standard, and its ruling should demonstrate that the proper standard was applied. The trial court is not foreclosed from taking additional evidence to determine the child’s best interest in this matter. Reversed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT, C.J., and GALLEN, THOMAS M., Associate Senior Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Georgeanne Romeo v. Romeo (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…6). The failure to include that finding—perhaps the most important determination a family court must make in a modification proceeding—will typically require reversal of a judgment that modifies a prior judgment's parenting plan. See Bell v. Hill, 976 So. 2d 1192, 1193 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Foster v. Pearson, 925 So. 2d 1136, 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); cf. Engle v. Engle, 277 So. 3d 697, 702 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (observing that in family law proceedings "there is an acute need for the final judgment to contain th…
-
Neta Miller v. Miller, 992 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…l court’s decision to change custody turned solely on denial of the petition to relocate and no demonstrated substantial change in circumstances, the custody modification award must be reversed. See Segarra, 947 So. 2d at 547; see also Bell v. Hill, 976 So. 2d 1192, 1193 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“Critically absent from the modification order is a finding that there had been a substantial change in circumstances subsequent to the entry of the operative visitation schedule and that a change in visitation was in the b…