PATRICIA MAGDZIAK, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMIE SULLIVAN, 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.
Patricia Magdziak appealed a trial court's modification of a parenting plan, challenging whether the modified plan was sufficiently detailed. The appellate court reversed, finding the parenting plan legally insufficient under Florida Statute § 61.13(2)(b) because it failed to adequately specify required details and remanded for entry of a more complete plan.
The parenting plan as constituted in the final judgment of modification was legally insufficient because it failed to comply with the statutory requirements of § 61.13(2)(b). The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for entry of a more complete parenting plan that adequately specifies all required statutory elements.
[1] A parenting plan approved by the court must, at a minimum, describe in adequate detail how parents will share daily upbringing tasks, the time-sharing schedule, responsib…
[2] A final judgment adopting a parenting plan is legally insufficient if the plan is not attached to the judgment or adequately set forth within it.
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“A parenting plan approved by the court must, at a minimum, describe in adequate detail how the parents will share and be responsible for the daily tasks associated with the upbringing of the child; the time-sharing schedule arrangements that specify the time that the minor child will spend with each parent; a designation of who will be responsible for any and all forms of health care, school-related matters including thé address to be used for school-boundary determination and registration, and other activities; and the methods and technologies that the parents will use to communicate with the child.”
This quote sets forth the statutory requirements for a sufficient parenting plan under § 61.13(2)(b), which the trial court's plan failed to meet.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court granted Jamie Sullivan's petition to modify a parenting plan from an earlier paternity judgment. The final judgment stated the court b…
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 Petition To Modify Parenting Plan cases and more on FLexlaw
Patricia Magdziak appeals the trial court’s final judgment granting Jamie Sullivan’s petition to modify' a parenting plan established in an earlier final judgment of paternity. Magdziak raises three issues on appeal, but on the limited record presented, the only issue meriting discussion is the sufficiency of the parenting plan.1
. After trial, the court granted Sullivan’s petition in an order that stated: “The *1293Court believes that the parenting plan suggested by [Sullivan] is in the best interests of the minor child_” Yet there is no parenting plan attached to the final judgment or adequately set forth in the judgment itself, nor is there a trial transcript detailing the final plan. Rather, the, final judgment of modification “adopts [Sullivan]’s recommended parenting plan” without attaching it. The judgment outlines some provisions of the new parenting arrangement,-addressing ,-such issues as selection of the child’s school and the permissible, location of extracurricular activities, and it further states that non-conflicting provisions of the previous final judgment remain effective. The judgment also sets forth a new time-sharing arrangement, but does so in general terms.2 Appellee concedes that the plan as established “might not be ... artfully articulated,” but he characterizes the omissions as a scrivener’s error.- We do not agree.
In outlining the requirements for a sufficient parenting plan, section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2013), provides:
A parenting plan approved by the court must, at a minimum, describe in adequate detail how the parents will share and be responsible for the daily tasks associated with the upbringing of the child; the time-sharing schedule arrangements that specify the time that the minor child will spend with each parent; a designation of who will be responsible for any and all forms of health care, school-related matters including thé address to be used for school-boundary determination and registration, and other activities; and the methods and technologies that the parents will use to communicate with the child.
As constituted, the parenting plan set out in the final judgment of modification fails to comply with the statutory requirements and is therefore legally insufficient. See Munroe v. Olibrice, 83 So.3d 985, 987-88 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Accordingly, we reverse for the trial court to- enter a more complete plan that complies with section 61.13(2)(b).
AFFIRMED’ IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
PALMER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Duke v. Duke, 211 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…be in adequate detail the methods and technologies that the parents will use to communicate with the child. A trial court’s failure to make these required factual findings is reversible error even where there is no transcript. Magdziak v. Sullivan, 185 So. 3d 1292, 1293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (reversing parenting plan despite having no transcript because plan set forth timesharing schedule in only general terms). Here, the final judgment required Former Husband and Former Wife to exercise shared parenting of th…
-
Rahul Scudder v. Freeda Mary Scudder, 296 So. 3d 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…legally insufficient. Ford v. Ford, 153 So. 3d 315, 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). We must therefore reverse and remand the case to the circuit court to complete the parenting plan. We disagree with the former husband however that Magdziak v. Sullivan, 185 So. 3d 1292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), and Munroe v. Olibrice, 83 So. 3d 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), control. In both of those cases, the circuit court failed to provide any parenting plan. As argued by the former wife, we find our decision in Schoonmaker v. Schoonmak…
-
Salazar v. Blanco, 411 So. 3d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jameca Munroe v. Mackenson R. Olibrice, 83 So. 3d 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)