MATTHEW LOEBS, APPELLANT,
v.
ASHLEY LOEBS, 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.
Matthew Loebs appeals a trial court order modifying the parenting plan and awarding attorney's fees to his former wife. The appellate court dismissed the attorney's fees challenge as premature, affirmed most of the parenting modifications, but reversed a provision improperly delegating parental decision-making authority to the minor children regarding extracurricular activities.
The court dismissed the attorney's fees appeal as premature because the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount. The court reversed the provision allowing children to unilaterally decline extracurricular activities as an improper delegation of parental decision-making authority inconsistent with shared parental responsibility, and remanded with directions to strike that language. All other issues were affirmed.
[1] An order determining entitlement to attorney's fees but reserving jurisdiction to determine the amount is nonfinal and nonappealable.
[2] A provision in a parenting plan that allows a child to decide whether to attend extracurricular activities improperly delegates parental decision-making authority to the…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“'Shared parental responsibility' means a court-ordered relationship in which both parents retain full parental rights and responsibilities with respect to their child and in which both parents confer with each other so that major decisions affecting the welfare of the child will be determined jointly.”
Statutory definition establishing that shared parental responsibility requires joint decision-making by both parents on major decisions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMatthew Loebs and Ashley Loebs were former spouses involved in a modification of their parenting plan. The trial court entered orders on December 9, 2…
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 Shared Parental Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
Matthew Loebs,' the Former Husband, challenges the trial court’s orders entered on the Former Wife’s Petition Seeking Modification of Parenting Plan Final Order.. The issues presented for our consideration concern timesharing, child support, arid attorney’s fees.
To the extent the Former Husband challenges the award of attorneys fees, we dismiss the appeal because the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount of the award. See Card v. Card, 122 So.3d 436, 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (explaining that an order determining only the entitlement to attorney’s fees without setting the amount is nonfinal and nonap-pealable).
The Former Husband also argues that a portion of the December 9, 2013, order which awards shared parental responsibility but provides that “if a child does not desire to attend an extracurricular activity, the child shall not be required to attend,” is contradictory to the award of shared. parental responsibility. See § 61.046(17), Fla. Stat. (2013) (“ ‘Shared parental responsibility’ means a courfe-or-dered relationship in which both parents retain full parental rights and responsibilities with respect to their child and in which both parents confer with each other so that major decisions affecting the welfare of the child will be determined jointly.”). Because we agree that this provision improperly delegates parental decision-making authority to the minor children, we reverse this portion of the order1 and remand with directions to strike the provision. Cf. Orizondo v. Orizondo, 146 So.3d 151, 152 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (“[T]he trial court’s admitted abdication to the desires of the children constitutes reversible error.”); Elkins v. Vanden Bosch, 433 So.2d 1251, 1253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (“The law does not ... gratify the wishes- of children at the expense of the rights of a parent. Were it otherwise, the law would encourage manipulation by both children and parents arid foster a breakdown in discipline, neither of which is in1 the best interests of children.” (citation omitted)).
We affirm on all other issues raised in this appeal without further comment.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. -
WALLACE and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Elkins v. Bosch, 433 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Suzzann Evans Card v. Card, 122 So. 3d 436 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Orizondo v. Orizondo, 146 So. 3d 151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)