RINA GENISE COUPERTHWAITE, N/K/A RINA GENISE POLLOCK, FORMER WIFE
v.
DAVID W. COUPERTHWAITE, FORMER HUSBAND
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 the trial court's denial of the mother's petition to relocate with the minor child under Florida Statute 61.13001, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's application of the law.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a parent's petition to relocate with a minor child when the court applies the correct legal standard under section 61.13001, Florida Statutes.
[1] A trial court's denial of a petition to relocate with a minor child under section 61.13001, Florida Statutes, is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will be affirmed whe…
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 intelligenceRina Genise Couperthwaite (now Pollock) sought to relocate with the parties' minor child to another state. The trial court denied her petition to relo…
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 Family Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the final order denying her petition to relocate with the minor child, pursuant to section 61.13001, Florida Statutes (2017). The portion of the trial court’s order modifying the timesharing schedule, as made necessary by Appellant’s permanent relocation to another state, is not appealed. To the extent the issues were preserved for appellate review, we find that the trial court applied the correct law and Appellant fails to demonstrate an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. The order denying petition to relocate with minor child but modifying the timesharing schedule is thus AFFIRMED. See Ness v. Martinez, 249 So. 3d 754, 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); Rossman v. Profera, 67 So. 3d 363, 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
MAKAR, OSTERHAUS, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Bradley G. Johnson, Milton, for Appellant.
J. Rod Cameron, Pace, for Appellee.
2