WHITT
v.
LOPEZ
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 trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing its order, and the appellant retains the right to schedule an evidentiary hearing to challenge the validity of the hair follicle drug test.
[1] In child custody proceedings, a trial court does not abuse its discretion in deferring an evidentiary hearing on the validity of drug test evidence while maintaining inte…
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 intelligence“If you want to go ahead and reset it for a later time for an evidentiary hearing you are welcome to. But in the interim the child is not going to be in danger.”
Trial court's statement to appellant's counsel during the February 14, 2018 hearing regarding the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing while protecting the child from potential harm
A trial court held a hearing on February 14, 2018 regarding child custody and drug testing issues. The court warned both parties and indicated concern…
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 Evidentiary Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court’s order without prejudice to appellant’s right to accept the trial court’s invitation to schedule an evidentiary hearing on the question of the validity of the hair follicle drug test.1 1 As the trial court stated to appellant’s counsel during the February 14, 2018 hearing, “[i]f you want to go ahead and reset it for a later time for an evidentiary hearing you are welcome to. But in the interim the child is not going to be in danger. I warned you both specifically. And I am not going to have this child on drugs—he on drugs with the child around.”