KAIANNA MARIE GERENCSER, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID MILLS, 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.
Mother appeals a modification of custody and parental responsibility, challenging the trial court's grant of primary residential responsibility to the father and a provision giving the father ultimate decision-making authority on major child-related decisions. The appellate court affirms the custody modification but reverses the decision-making provision, finding it inconsistent with shared parental responsibility principles.
The trial court's custody modification is affirmed, but the provision granting the father ultimate decision-making authority on contested issues is reversed and remanded. Under shared parental responsibility, major decisions must be made after parents confer and reach agreement; disputes should be presented to the court for resolution under the best interests of the child standard, not delegated to one parent.
[1] Shared parental responsibility requires parents to confer and reach agreement on major decisions affecting a child's welfare.
[2] If parents reach an impasse on child-rearing decisions, the dispute must be presented to the court for resolution based on the child's best interests.
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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the legal standard for shared parental responsibility and the proper procedure when parents disagree on major child-related decisions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe mother and father had a settlement agreement providing for shared parental responsibility and joint decision-making on major issues affecting the …
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
Kaianna Marie Gerencser, the mother, appeals a supplemental final judgment granting David Mills, the father’s, supplemental petition to modify parental responsibility/visitation and changing custody and primary residential responsibility from her to the father. We find the trial court’s decision to be premised on competent substantial evidence and affirm the order in all respects except as discussed hereafter.
Paragraph 5 of the trial court’s order provides:
5. Continued Applicability of the Settlement Agreement. Except as it is specifically modified by this supplemental final judgment, the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement continues to apply and specifically requires them to consult and to make joint decisions for the children rather than unilateral decisions. They are encouraged to employ the services of a professional mediator, parenting coordinator, or other professional to assist them in their efforts to communicate for the good of their children. If after consulting with each other and considering the opinions of one another they are unable to reach an agreement on an issue such as where a child will be enrolled in school or daycare, where or if a child will attend church or other religious services, and what doctor a child will see, the primary residential parent will have ultimate decision-making authority on those issues.
(Emphasis added). The mother contends that giving the father final say on all matters regarding the children is inconsistent with the notion of shared parental responsibility. We agree.
Under the principle of shared parental responsibility, major decisions affecting the welfare of a child are to be made after the parents confer and reach an agreement. See § 61.046(16), Fla. Stat. (2007). In the event that the parents reach an impasse, the dispute should be presented to the court for resolution. Sotnick v. Sotnick, 650 So.2d 157, 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Tamari v. Turko-Tamari, 599 So.2d 680, 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). In *24that event, the court must resolve the impasse, applying the best interests of the child test. See § 61.13(2)00,(3), Fla. Stat. (2007).1
Paragraph 5 of the trial court’s ruling, as currently written, does not provide the mother with shared parental responsibility as it allows the father to make the ultimate decision on any issue on which the parents do not agree. Though such an arrangement may be necessary some day, the history of the mother’s and father’s inability to cooperate is not yet extensive enough to justify giving the father sole decision-making authority. See § 61.046(18), Fla. Stat. (2007). The trial court should continue shared parenting until there is convincing evidence that it is unworkable.2
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
PALMER, C.J. and SAWAYA, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lissette C. Schwieterman v. Schwieterman, 114 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…care, custody, and management of their child). In the event of a deadlock between the parents regarding these issues, the dispute must be presented to the trial court for resolution in accordance with the child’s best interests. Gerencser v. Mills, 4 So. 3d 22, 23 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Sotnick v. Sotnick, 650 So. 2d 157, 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Taman v. Turko-Tamari, 599 So. 2d 680, 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).2 It is error for the trial court to delegate the ultimate decision as to visitation and other issues…
-
Dickson v. Dickson, 169 So. 3d 287 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…welfare of a child are to be made after the parents confer and reach an agreement. See § 61.046(17), Fla. Stat. (2014). In the event that the parents reach an impasse, the dispute should be presented to the court for resolution. Gerencser v. Mills, 4 So. 3d 22, 23 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Sotnick v. Sotnick, 650 So. 2d 157, 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Tamari v. Turko-Tamari, 599 So. 2d 680, 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Because the parties here were unable to agree on the minor child’s school, the mother was required t…
-
Cranney v. Cranney, 206 So. 3d 162 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…oth parties were awarded shared parental responsibility. “Under the principle of shared parental responsibility, major decisions affecting the welfare of a child are to be made after [both] parents confer and reach an agreement.” Gerencser v. Mills, 4 So. 3d 22, 23 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). By awarding the mother ultimate decision-making authority on issues affecting the children, the trial court essentially nullified the award of shared parental responsibility. See id. We acknowledge that the trial court made…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Martinez v. Martinez, 573 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Sotnick v. Sotnick, 650 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Doram Tamari v. Turko-Tamari, 599 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Mesa v. Mesa, 652 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)