ANDREW FORSSELL, APPELLANT,
v.
HEATHER FORSSELL, 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.
A father appeals orders suspending his time-sharing with minor children and denying a joint motion to vacate a domestic violence injunction. The court partially affirmed the suspension but reversed it in part for failure to specify reinstatement steps, and reversed the denial of the motion to vacate the injunction, requiring a hearing on remand.
The court affirmed the temporary suspension of time-sharing but reversed the suspension order in part for failure to specify steps for reinstatement. The court reversed the denial of the motion to vacate the domestic violence injunction and remanded for a hearing, holding that when a legally sufficient motion to modify or dissolve a domestic violence injunction is filed, the trial court must afford the movant an opportunity to be heard rather than summarily denying the motion.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by failing to set forth the specific steps a parent must take to re-establish time-sharing after it has been suspended.
[2] A party may move to modify or dissolve a domestic violence injunction at any time.
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“the trial court abused its discretion in failing to set forth, in the order, the steps the father must take to re-establish time-sharing”
Establishes the primary error in the suspension order—lack of specific reinstatement criteria
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAndrew Forssell and Heather Forssell, formerly married parents of minor children, were involved in two cases. The mother obtained a final judgment for…
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 Timesharing cases and more on FLexlaw
Andrew Forssell (the father) appeals a nonfinal order granting the verified emergency motion of his former wife, Heather Forssell (the mother), to suspend indefinitely his time-sharing with the parties’ minor children (Case Number 4D15-702). In a separate case, he also appeals a nonfi-nal order denying the parties’ joint request to vacate and dissolve the final judgment for protection against domestic violence, which the mother had obtained against him (Case No. 4D 15-730). We consolidated these two cases for all purposes. We reverse the time-sharing order in part and also reverse the order denying the motion to vacate and dissolve the injunction.
We reject without discussion most of the father’s arguments for reversing the order suspending time-sharing, and we affirm the temporary suspension. We reverse the order in part, however, because the trial court abused its discretion in failing to set forth, in the order, the steps the father must take to re-establish time-sharing. Ross v. Botha, 867 So.2d 567, 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Grigsby v. Grigsby, 39 So.3d 453, 456-57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Hunter v. Hunter, 540 So.2d 235, 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). On remand, the trial court may consider the need for a psychological evaluation, a parenting course, and/or an anger management course before the father may resuming time-sharing.
We also reverse the order denying the parties’ joint request to vacate and dissolve the final judgment for protection against domestic violence. Either party may move to modify or dissolve a domestic violence injunction at any time. Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.610(c)(6); § 741.30(10), Fla. Stat. (2014). When a motion is legally sufficient, the trial court should afford the mov-ant an opportunity to be heard, rather than summarily denying the motion. Betteman v. Kukelhan, 977 So.2d 702, 703 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). In this case, the trial court erred in denying the parties’ joint request to dissolve the injunction without affording the father the opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, we direct the trial court on remand to hold a hearing.
Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded.
TAYLOR, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Witt-Bahls v. Bahls, 193 So. 3d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…esharing. However, if the trial court determines that anger management therapy or a substance abuse program, for example, would be more appropriate than merely general counseling, it must so specify, along with a timeframe. See Forssell v. Forssell, 188 So. 3d 880 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (citing to Ross, Grigs-by, and Hunter in concluding that the trial court “abused its discretion in failing to set forth ... the steps the father must take to re-establish time-sharing” and noting that, “[o]n remand, the trial cou…
-
Deidre Mallick v. Mallick, 311 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Ross v. Hayley Lisa Botha, 867 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Hunter v. Hunter, 540 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Grigsby v. Grigsby, 39 So. 3d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Betterman v. Kukelhan, 977 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Klier v. Dep't OF Bus. & Prof'l, 39 So. 3d 453 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)