KARIN SHALEESH, APPELLANT,
v.
ANTHONY SHALEESH, 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.
The court affirmed a trial court's non-final order temporarily suspending the timesharing plan and allowing the minor child to reside with the father pending a final hearing on modification, finding no abuse of discretion where the trial court satisfied the two-part test for temporary custody modification.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in granting a temporary suspension of a timesharing plan when the moving party establishes through competent, substantial evidence both a substantial or material change in circumstances and that the modification is in the best interest of the child.
[1] To obtain a temporary custody modification, the moving party must establish through competent, substantial evidence both a substantial or material change in circumstances…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former husband sought a temporary suspension of the parties' timesharing plan for their minor child LS and permission for LS to reside with him in…
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 Temporary Custody Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
Karin Shaleesh (“former wife”) challenges a non-final order granting Joseph Shaleesh’s (“former husband”) motion for a temporary suspension of the parties’ timesharing plan with respect to their minor child, LS, and permitting LS to reside with the former husband in Miami-Dade County pending the outcome of a final hearing on the former husband’s verified petition for modification of timesharing and relocation of LS to Florida. “In order to obtain a temporary custody modification, the moving party must satisfy a two-part test' by establishing through competent, substantial evidence that (1) there has been a substantial or material change in circumstances and (2) the modification is in the best interest of the child or children involved.” Bon v. Rivera, 10 So.3d 193, 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); see also Bronstein v. Bronstein, 167 So.3d 462, 464 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). Upon reviewing the transcripts of the hearing conducted below, at which: (1) the former wife was both present and participated; and (2) the trial court conducted a transcribed, in camera interview of LS, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering the non-final order on review. Bon, 10 So.3d at 195 (“The standard for reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to modify custody is abuse of discretion, although the trial court has much less discretion to modify a custody order than it enjoys in making the original custody determination.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ingrid BON v. Nestor A. Rivera, 10 So. 3d 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Bronstein v. Tal Bronstein, 167 So. 3d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)