BRAD MORTON
v.
ALEXIS FABY
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 judgment establishing paternity and approving a long-distance time-sharing plan will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.
[1] A trial court's determination regarding time-sharing and parenting plans is reviewed on appeal under the abuse of discretion standard.
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 intelligenceBrad Morton appealed a judgment from Monroe County Circuit Court establishing paternity and implementing a long-distance time-sharing plan.…
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.
Brad Morton, in proper person. Alexis Faby, in proper person. Before SCALES, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM.
After thorough review of the briefs and record, and finding no abuse of the trial court’s broad discretion in these matters, we affirm the trial court’s final judgment of paternity and long-distance time-sharing plan. See Smith v. Daniel, 246 So. 3d 1279, 1280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (“A trial court has ‘broad discretion’ in determining time-sharing matters and parenting plans, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.”); Krift v. Obenour, 152 So. 3d 645, 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“A trial court’s timesharing and parenting plan determination is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Krift v. Obenour, 152 So. 3d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Smith v. Daniel, 246 So. 3d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)