ANDRE P. MALEK
v.
MARIE MALEK
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's time-sharing order in a paternity case is affirmed when supported by competent, substantial evidence and the trial court's findings address the statutory best-interest factors.
[1] In family law matters involving time-sharing arrangements, an appellate court must affirm a trial court's order when the findings are supported by competent, substantial…
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“It is not the function of the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court through re-evaluation of the testimony and evidence from the record on appeal before it. The test . . . is whether the judgment of the trial court is supported by competent evidence.”
Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla. 1976), cited for the standard of appellate review in family law matters
Andre Malek appealed a final paternity judgment that limited his visitation to every other weekend on Saturday from 10:00 am to 7:00 pm. The trial cou…
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 Paternity Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed June 25, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-1247 Lower Tribunal No. 20-19054-FC-04 ________________
Andre P. Malek, Appellant,
vs.
Marie Malek, Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Christina Marie DiRaimondo, Judge.
Mandel Law Group, P.A., and Roberta G. Mandel, for appellant.
No Appearance, for appellee.
Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Appellant Andre Malek appeals a final judgment for paternity. He challenges the time-sharing portion of the order, which limited his visitation to every other weekend on Saturday from 10:00 am to 7:00 pm. At the final hearing, the trial court heard testimony from four witnesses and received evidence. Thereafter, it issued an order addressing the factors set forth in section 61.13, Florida Statutes, and focused on the best interest of the minor child. Because the trial court’s findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence, we are constrained to affirm. See Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla. 1976) (“It is not the function of the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court through re-evaluation of the testimony and evidence from the record on appeal before it. The test . . . is whether the judgment of the trial court is supported by competent evidence.”); Florida Mining & Materials v. Mobley, 649 So. 2d 934, 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“But the case may not be retried on appeal, and a ruling which is supported by competent substantial evidence will be upheld even though there may be some persuasive evidence to the contrary.”). Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Fla. Mining & Materials v. Mobley, 649 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)