CHRISTINA HAMILTON, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID T. LEMON, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Child Visitation cases and more on FLexlaw
Christina Hamilton appeals a final judgment of paternity. The record is sparse; no transcript was provided. In her “brief,” Ms. Hamilton appears to complain about the trial court’s decision to allow the natural father visitation with the parties’ child, although it is possible Ms. Hamilton also disputes the determination of paternity. The record reflects a DNA test, which Ms. Hamilton refers to as a “Walgreens [sic] bought paternity test.” There is no answer to the original petition and, other than the previously quoted comment, no clear indication in her brief that paternity is still in dispute. Ms. Hamilton certainly disputes the decision of the trial court allowing the natural father visitation. However, issues relating to shared parenting and visitation are naturally fact-intensive and, without the benefit of a transcript, are not subject to appellate review absent some defect on the face of the final judgment. Van Epps v. Hartzell, 934 So.2d 590, 592 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, C.J., and MONACO, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Turem v. State, 220 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…Fla. 1999) (citing Lightbourne v. Dugger, 549 So. 2d 1364, 1365 (Fla. 1989)). A claim that counsel failed to investigate a defendant’s mental health and failed to seek a competency determination is cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion. Watts v. State, 82 So. 3d 1215, 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (citing Demarco v. State, 31 So. 3d 975, 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)). Here, although Turem’s allegations and theories of ineffective assistance of counsel on this claim encompassed several grounds, we conclude that Turem set for…
Authorities Cited
- van Epps v. Hartzell, 934 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)