SHOKO JOHNSON
v.
NICHOLAS DEAN JOHNSON
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 trial court cannot award one parent ultimate decision-making authority over issues affecting the child while simultaneously ordering shared parental responsibility, as such an award nullifies the shared responsibility designation.
[1] An award of ultimate decision-making authority to one parent is incompatible with and nullifies a simultaneous award of shared parental responsibility, and such an award…
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“By awarding the husband ultimate decision-making authority on issues affecting the child, the trial court essentially nullified the award of shared parental responsibility.”
Court's explanation of the fundamental error in the trial court's order
In a pending divorce action, the trial court issued a temporary relief order awarding the husband ultimate decision-making authority while also orderi…
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 Ultimate Decision-Making Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
SHOKO JOHNSON, Appellant,
v.
NICHOLAS DEAN JOHNSON, Appellee.
No. 4D2023-3111
[September 4, 2024]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Leatha D. Mullins, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562022DR002309.
Dulce B. Fazel of Dulce B. Fazel, P.A., Phoenix, AZ, for appellant.
No brief filed for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, the wife in a pending divorce action, appeals from a temporary relief order. We find merit in her argument that the trial court erred in awarding the husband “ultimate decision-making” while at the same time ordering shared parental responsibility. Clarke v. Stofft, 263 So. 3d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Seligsohn v. Seligsohn, 259 So. 3d 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); McClure v. Beck, 212 So. 3d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); see also Glevis v. Glevis, 310 So. 3d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021). By awarding the husband ultimate decision-making authority on issues affecting the child, the trial court essentially nullified the award of shared parental responsibility. McClure, 212 So. 3d at 398; Glevis, 310 So. 3d at 528.
We reverse that portion of the temporary order for three reasons. First, the husband did not seek ultimate decision-making authority over any issues affecting the child’s welfare. Second, the record does not include evidence to support that award. Third, the order fails to specify matters over which the husband would have ultimate decision-making authority. Louis v. Louis, 324 So. 3d 11, 12 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).
Without further discussion, we affirm the remaining portions of the order.
2
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
LEVINE, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McClure v. Beck, 212 So. 3d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
- Sharonit Amar Seligsohn v. Seligsohn, 259 So. 3d 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
- Dominique David Louis v. Danyiel Louis, 324 So. 3d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
- Evena Charles Glevis v. Glevis, 310 So. 3d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)