ZACHARY RANKIN
v.
BLAINE LOUNSBURY
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 does not violate a parent's due process rights by awarding sole decision-making authority to one parent when competent, substantial evidence shows the other parent's history of refusing to cooperate in joint decisions.
[1] A trial court may award sole decision-making authority to one parent over a child's educational and non-emergency medical matters when competent, substantial evidence dem…
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 intelligenceZachary Rankin, the father, appealed a final judgment establishing paternity and a parenting plan. The trial court awarded Blaine Lounsbury, the mothe…
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 Shared Parental Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed March 15, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-2472 Lower Tribunal No. 21-12-P
________________
Zachary Rankin,
Appellant,
vs.
Blaine Lounsbury,
Appellee. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Sharon I. Hamilton, Judge. Orshan, Spann, & Fernandez-Mesa, and Steven P. Spann, for appellant. Nancy A. Hass, P.A., and Nancy A. Hass (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee. Before SCALES, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ. MILLER, J. Appellant, Zachary Rankin, the father, challenges a final judgment establishing paternity and a parenting plan. On appeal, the father contends the trial court violated his due process rights by awarding appellee, Blaine Lounsbury, the mother, sole decision-making authority as to the educational and non-emergency medical needs of the minor child in the event the parties are unable to agree. In her pleadings and other written submissions, the mother specifically requested an order “[e]stablishing a parenting plan that provides for shared responsibility of the minor child, if appropriate,” and detailed the historical refusal by the father to cooperate in joint decisions. Further, the issues precipitating this resistance were extensively litigated at trial. As the decision below is undeniably supported by competent, substantial evidence, we affirm the well-reasoned order under review in all respects and write only to commend the trial judge for her judicious handling of this contentious and difficult case. See Cruz v. Domenech, 905 So. 2d 938, 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Moncher v. Maine, 892 So. 2d 1147, 1148–50 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); see also Regan v. Regan, 660 So. 2d 1166, 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Moses v. Moses, 347 So. 3d 385, 390 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021); Schneider v. Schneider, 864 So. 2d 1193, 1194–95 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); § 61.13(2)(c)2.(a), Fla. Stat. (2021) amended by ch. 2021-139, § 1, Laws of Fla.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rankin v. Blaine Lounsbury (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…of this contentious and difficult case. See Cruz v. Domenech, 905 So. 2d 938, 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Moncher v. Maine, 892 So. 2d 1147, 1148–50 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); see also Regan v. Regan, 660 So. 2d 1166, 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Moses v. Moses, 347 So. 3d 385, 390 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021); Schneider v. Schneider, 864 So. 2d 1193, 1194–95 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); § 61.13(2)(c)2.(a), Fla. Stat. (2021) amended by ch. 2021-139, § 1, Laws of Fla. Affirmed.…
-
Rankin v. Blaine Lounsbury (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…of this contentious and difficult case. See Cruz v. Domenech, 905 So. 2d 938, 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Moncher v. Maine, 892 So. 2d 1147, 1148–50 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); see also Regan v. Regan, 660 So. 2d 1166, 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Moses v. Moses, 347 So. 3d 385, 390 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021); Schneider v. Schneider, 864 So. 2d 1193, 1194–95 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); § 61.13(2)(c)2.(a), Fla. Stat. (2021) amended by ch. 2021-139, § 1, Laws of Fla. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Schneider v. Ivy Schneider, 864 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Regan v. Regan, 660 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Cruz v. Domenech, 905 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Moncher v. Kris Maine, 892 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Rankin v. Blaine Lounsbury (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)