SAMUEL LEE SMITH, JR.
v.
NATASHA KATHERINA SMITH
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.
Trial courts possess substantial discretion in rendering decisions relating to the frequency, timing, duration, and conditions of timesharing, provided such decisions are supported by findings as to the best interests of the child.
[1] Trial courts possess substantial discretion in rendering decisions relating to the frequency, timing, duration, and conditions of timesharing, and such decisions must be…
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 intelligenceSamuel Lee Smith, Jr. appealed a timesharing decision rendered by the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County.…
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 Best Interests Of The Child cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed June 19, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-1301 Lower Tribunal No. 17-7498 ________________
Samuel Lee Smith, Jr., Appellant,
vs.
Natasha Katherina Smith, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jason E. Dimitris , Judge.
Samuel Lee Smith, Jr., in proper person.
Alexander Appellate Law P.A., and Samuel Alexander, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, C.J., and LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Ward v. Waters, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D72, at *2 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 3, 2024) (explaining that trial courts possess “substantial discretion in rendering decisions relating to the frequency, timing, duration, and conditions of timesharing” that “must be supported by a finding as to the best interests of the child”) (citing Talarico v. Talarico, 305 So. 3d 601, 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (explaining substantial discretion); and Davis v. Davis, 245 So. 3d 810, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (explaining findings related to the best interests of the child)).