Category: Child Custody

Punishment and Domestic Violence

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

When does child discipline cross the line between punishment and domestic violence? It is a frequent child custody issue which can impact parental rights and timesharing. After a Colorado ski vacation, two parents found out how Florida courts look at punishing your teenager for marijuana, theft, and ingratitude.

Punishment Domestic Violence

Rocky Mountain High

The two Florida parents divorced in 2018. About four years after their divorce, a domestic violence injunction was filed by the mother against the father on behalf of their fourteen-year-old daughter. The Mother alleged in her petition that the father had punched the daughter; grabbed her by the hair, and then sat on his daughter. Worse, while sitting on top of her, the father continued to punch and slap his daughter.

At the trial, the Father testified that he and his daughter had just returned from a Colorado ski vacation during the winter holidays. When they returned, his daughter had given him a pair of socks as a gift. Either very suspicious, or just unhappy with his gift, the father suspected the gift socks were stolen.

The father searched the daughter’s room to see if there were other stolen items. In her backpack from the ski trip to Colorado, the father found marijuana, a pipe, and a vape pen. Colorado, remember, became the first state in the U.S. to sell legal recreational marijuana for adult use. The father announced he was going to punish the daughter for stealing, lying, and possessing marijuana and a vape pen by taking away her most cherished item, her phone.

The daughter refused to give the father her phone, obviously, and they ended up tussling over it. At some point, the daughter snapped the father’s finger back and broke it.

The father refused to return her phone, and the daughter threw a metal thermos and an orange juice bottle. Father denied punching her, pulling her hair, or sitting on her. The daughter told the neighbor she had gotten into an argument with her father but did not need the neighbor to call the police.

The daughter then went back to the father’s house. The neighbor testified the daughter did not seem fearful to return to her father’s house. She then came back to the neighbor’s house and asked for a ride to the mother’s house. During the car ride, the neighbor did not see any physical injuries on the daughter

The mother testified she saw a bruise on the daughter’s back, leg, and arm. The mother took pictures of the bruises. A Child Protection Investigator testified there were “no indicators of mental or physical injury because the parties were deemed as mutual combatants.” The CPI observed “a little black and blue” on the daughter’s shoulder and arm but no bruising or marks. The guardian ad litem for the child also testified, and said it was a mutual combatant situation, and “absolutely 100 percent inappropriate.”

The trial court found there was competent substantial evidence that the daughter is in fear, and granted the injunction for six months. Father appealed.

Punishment in Florida

I’ve written about spanking and custody before. In Florida, parents have a right to discipline their child in a reasonable manner. Florida has strong laws for the protection against domestic violence. Domestic violence includes any assault, battery or any other offense resulting in physical injury of a family member by another family member.

However, parents have to discipline their children, and as the good book says:

“Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.”

A parent’s right to administer reasonable corporal punishment to discipline a child is not a crime when it does not result in harm to the child. Harm, by the way, does not mean just bruises or welts. Harm also means that the discipline is likely to result in physical injury, mental injury, or emotional injury. Even if you don’t physically harm a child, your actions could be criminal.

Florida’s parental privilege to use corporal discipline does not give absolute immunity either. Your run-of-the-mill spanking may be protected from charges of child abuse, but sitting on your child, punching her on the floor and pulling her hair is not. While there are some limited privileges for discipline, there are major risks to your custody case, your domestic violence case, and most importantly, to your children.

The High Court

The argument by the father on appeal was that the altercation between he and his cellphone addicted teenage daughter was nothing more than the father exercising his right to discipline his child. He argued his actions were appropriate physical discipline, rather than an assault, battery, aggravated assault, or aggravated battery.

There was also no history of domestic violence by the father toward the daughter or evidence that would give her a reason to believe she was about to be subjected to domestic violence. The injunction was based solely on the one post-Colorado ski trip incident between a father and his teenage daughter in which he physically wrenched the cellphone from her.

The 4th DCA reversed. The father’s physical and verbal actions in taking away the daughter’s cell phone was a form of physical discipline, not corporal punishment. The appellate court ruled that even if it was punishment, it was not excessive corporal punishment because the daughter refused to surrender her phone, and there was no evidence of disfigurement or significant bruising on the child.

The opinion is available here.

Fighting Paternity and UCCJEA Jurisdiction

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

A husband and wife, who marry in Brazil, agree the husband does not have paternity and is not the legal father of their daughter. But that does not stop them from fighting UCCJEA jurisdiction in Florida. What happens when the court disagrees with them that he’s not the Father? A married couple just found out the results in an interesting international child custody case.

UCCJEA Paternity

The Girl from Ipanema

The Wife is a Brazilian citizen living in Rio de Janeiro not far from the famous beach. The Husband is a U.S. citizen, a commercial airline pilot, and resides in Florida. The parties met online in 2014. They later were married in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 2016.

The wife had a daughter born in Brazil in 2015, the year before they got married. Interestingly, while the wife acknowledged she was the biological mother, the parties stipulated that the husband was not the biological father.

However, the Husband added his last name to the child’s name on the child’s birth certificate in Brazil. Later, they went to the U.S. Consulate in Brazil, and had a Consular Report of Birth Abroad Certificate issued for the child using his citizenship and his last name for the child.

Next, they had issued a U.S. passport and a Brazilian passport for the child using his last name as the father as well. It was later found that the husband held himself out as the father of his daughter during the marriage. The parties owned one marital asset, a home in Naples, Florida.

In 2021, the Husband filed a petition for divorce in Florida seeking only the following relief: (1) a dissolution of marriage and (2) and equitable distribution of the home in Naples. The Wife filed an answer denying allegations but did not raise the issue of the child, custody, or child support.

During the case, the parties entered a partial marital settlement agreement resolving all of the financial issues, including equitable distribution of the home. However, nothing was agreed, or mentioned, about their daughter.

Instead, the parties filed a stipulation that the husband was not the father of the child. Additionally, the husband filed an objection before trial that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear child support and custody under the UCCJEA because Florida was not the home state of the child.

The family judge entered a amended final judgment finding that the husband was the legal father of the child, and reserved jurisdiction on child support.

The Husband filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that under the UCCJEA, a court in Florida has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination only if Florida is the home state of the child or was the home state of the child within 6 months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent continues to live in Florida. The court denied the motion for reconsideration and the husband appealed.

Florida UCCJEA

I have written about international child custody issues before. The UCCJEA is a uniform act drafted to avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with other state courts in child custody matters; promote cooperation with other courts; ensure that a custody decree is rendered in the state which enjoys the superior position to decide what is in the best interest of the child; deter controversies and avoid re-litigation of custody issues; facilitate enforcement of custody decrees; and promote uniformity of the laws governing custody issues.

An important aspect of the UCCJEA is that it only covers child custody determinations. Under the UCCJEA, a “child custody determination” means a judgment, decree, or other order of a court providing for the legal custody, physical custody, residential care, or visitation with respect to a child. The term includes a permanent, temporary, initial, and modification order. The definition does not include an order relating to child support or other monetary obligation of an individual.

The UCCJEA deals with “child custody proceedings,” which are defined as proceedings in which legal custody, physical custody, residential care, or visitation with respect to a child is an issue. Child Custody proceedings do not include proceedings involving juvenile delinquency, contractual emancipation, or enforcement.

Although not part of the UCCJEA, under Florida law, the husband could have also faced additional challenges. For instance, if a mother of any child born out of wedlock and the reputed father intermarry, the child is deemed and held to be the child of the husband and wife, as though born within wedlock.

Boa Sorte

On appeal, the third district affirmed that the husband was the legal father of their daughter. The court noted that the UCCJEA was a jurisdictional act which controls custody disputes and only applies where custody is at issue.

The term custody includes a proceeding for divorce, separation, neglect, abuse, dependency, guardianship, paternity, termination of parental rights, and protection from domestic violence, in which the issue may appear.

But, a child custody determination does not include an order relating to child support or other monetary obligation of an individual. In this case, the appellate court found that the parties did not dispute custody of the minor child. As a result, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the action.

The opinion is here.

De Facto Parents and Child Custody

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Can someone ask a court for custody of a child if they are not the parent or legal guardian but act as the de facto parent? The Georgia Supreme Court just looked at that child custody question in weighing the constitutionality of Georgia’s Equitable Caregiver Act.

De Facto Parent

Georgia On My Mind

These days, a parent-child relationship is becoming hard to define. Cultural norms have changed, and increasingly we have embraced nontraditional families.

Imagine you and your child move in with your parents or significant other, and you rely on them to care for your child while you work. After several years, you get into a fight about parenting, move out, and limit their time with your child. Are your parents or Ex considered equal legal parents? Can a judge to decide how much visitation grandparents or your former significant other has with your child?

Roughly 38 states now recognize the concept of a “de facto parent,” where legal rights are rooted in the person’s relationship to the child as opposed to blood. And in 2019, Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed the “Equitable Caregiver Act,” which gives people the right to ask for custody if they can prove they have a “permanent, unequivocal, committed and responsible parental role” for the child.

Abby Boone believed she met that description. She helped raise a young girl for the first four years of the child’s life along with her partner, Michelle Dias. The girl is a cousin of Dias, who legally adopted her in 2011. Boone was not part of that adoption, but the court noted the girl’s middle name is listed as “Boone” on the child’s new birth certificate.

The child, M.D., was born in October 2010. Michelle Dias, who adopted M.D. in March 2011, was in a romantic relationship with Abby Boone, who helped care for M.D. from six weeks old but was not a party to the adoption.

After their breakup, Boone remained involved in M.D.’s life until 2018, when Dias cut off contact. In August 2019, Boone sought “equitable caregiver” status under Georgia’s newly enacted law, which allows a non-parent to be adjudicated as a caregiver with parental rights.

The trial court found that Boone met the statutory requirements and granted her joint legal custody and visitation rights in January 2024. Dias appealed, arguing the statute was unconstitutional because it infringed on a parent’s fundamental right to the custody and control of their child.

Florida De Facto Parent

I’ve written about parental responsibility in Florida before. In Florida, “custody” is a concept we have done away with. Florida uses the parental responsibility concept. Generally, shared parental responsibility is a relationship ordered by a court in which both parents retain their full parental rights and responsibilities.

Under shared parental responsibility, parents are required to confer with each other and jointly make major decisions affecting the welfare of their child. In Florida, shared parental responsibility is the preferred relationship between parents when a marriage or a relationship ends. In fact, courts are instructed to order parents to share parental responsibility of a child unless it would be detrimental to the child.

A grandparent and a stepparent do not acquire all of the rights or assume all of the obligations of a child’s natural parent in Florida. A grandparent may be awarded some visitation rights in very limited situations, such as when the child’s parents are deceased, missing, or in a permanent vegetative state.

Florida does not have a de facto or psychological parent law like Georgia’s. Generally, timesharing and visitation rights are statutory, and the court has no inherent authority to award visitation between a child and one who is neither a parent, grandparent, nor great-grandparent. Our supreme court, citing the fundamental and constitutional right of privacy, has unequivocally reaffirmed adoptive or biological parents’ right to make decisions about their children’s welfare without interference by third parties, and the state cannot intervene into a parent’s fundamental or constitutionally protected right of privacy, either via the judicial system or legislation, absent a showing of demonstrable harm to the child.

Just Peachy

The Georgia Supreme Court declined to resolve the constitutional challenges, instead it interpreted the statute to avoid retroactive application. The Supreme Court held the statute lacked a clear legislative intent for retroactive application. Accordingly, to apply it to a pre-2019 relationship – Dias was fostering Boone’s relationship with M.D. before the statute existed – would impermissibly ascribe new legal consequences to past actions, violating due process principles.

As a result of the refusal to apply the statute retroactively, the trial court’s order was reversed because the statute could not constitutionally apply to conduct predating its enactment, and the Court vacated Boone’s equitable caregiver status and custody rights.

The Georgia Supreme Court opinion is here.

Florida’s New Safe Exchange Locations Law

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

A new law amending Florida parenting plans this month deals with the concept of a ‘safe exchange location’. Every child custody and timesharing case must have a court approved parenting plan in which parents share decision-making and physical custody of their children. In some timesharing cases, the places parents do their pickups and drop-offs can be a problem. Family lawyers in Florida will be interested in the new changes to parenting plans.

Safe Exchange

Cassie Carli Law

Florida parenting plans not only govern the relationship between parents relating to decision making, but must contain a timesharing schedule for the parents and the children. Ideally, a parenting plan should attempt to address all issues concerning the minor child like the child’s education, health care, and physical, social, and emotional well-being.

But a frequent problem has been the place where exchanges of the child for timesharing takes place. Timesharing exchanges commonly occur in either parent’s homes, or well-lit parking lots of popular establishments, rest stops at the midway point between both parents, the child’s school, or a common landmark such as a specific coffee shop. There is really no limit to the location parents can agree to for the timesharing exchange.

However, when the parents have a contentious relationship, it is generally preferable that the exchange be made in a public, well-lit location with security cameras and high foot traffic by other people. Usually, parents are able to agree on a change in exchange location and deviate from the location prescribed in the parenting plan as needed.

Some sheriff and police departments allow parents to use their lobbies as an exchange location, but there is no standard process or procedure for all locations and many disapproved of the process.

The new law is often called  the “Cassie Carli law.’ The law was named for Cassie Carli, who was a 37-year-old mother from Navarre, Florida. Cassie went missing after a custody exchange with her ex-boyfriend. Days after she went missing, Cassie was found buried in Alabama.

Under the new law effective this month, every sheriff in Florida must:

  • designate at least one parking lot as a neutral safe exchange location for use by parents of a common child and
  • identify minimum requirements that each designated safe exchange location must satisfy, including a purple light or signage in the parking lot and a camera surveillance system.

Starting this July, family courts in Florida can order that exchanges of a child be conducted at a neutral safe exchange location if there is a risk or an imminent threat of harm to one of the parents or the child during the exchange.

The bill amends the domestic violence statute to allow the petitioner to request that the court require timesharing exchanges to be conducted at a safe exchange location, and to authorize or require the court to order the use of a neutral exchange location in an ex parte order for a temporary injunction under certain circumstances.

The bill also amends the law to provide that a parenting plan must generally designate authorized locations for the exchange of the child and may be required to take place at a neutral safe exchange location if there is a risk or an imminent threat of harm to one of the parents or the child during the exchange; the court finds such a requirement necessary to ensure the safety of a parent or the child; and such a requirement is in the best interest of the child.

Florida’s new designated safe exchange locations are not always staffed but are considered a secure environment because of the video surveillance and proximity to law enforcement. Police suggest that if anything occurs during the exchange to call 911 immediately.

The bill became effective July 1, 2024.

Your OnlyFans Account Could Cost You Child Custody

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Family lawyers are concerned with our clients’ online activities. That’s because it is not only your fans looking at your social media and other accounts. If your Ex discovers you are selling sexually explicit material of yourself on OnlyFans it could cost you child custody as one woman in Philadelphia found out.

Onlyfans child custody

City of Brotherly Love?

The Father and Mother were married for less than two years and had separated before their Child was born.  Since 2014 the couple shared legal custody. The Mother had a majority of the time, and Father had alternated two or four nights per week.

In 2020, Mother filed a petition to modify custody, alleging their Child was involved in two car crashes while being driven by Father’s new wife.

At the hearing, the Father defended by complaining to the court the Mother was posting sexually explicit photographs of herself on her OnlyFans website. The Father also made a ChildLine report about the Mother’s behavior.

The trial court immediately terminated the Mother’s contact with Child and ordered a forensic interview with Child. The court held that if the forensic interview revealed the Child was not aware of Mother’s OnlyFans activity, she would be granted supervised telephone calls – but no in-person contact pending a future court order!

However, if Child was aware of the Mother’s online activities, then Mother would be denied all contact with Child. The order also required the Mother to delete her OnlyFans  account and submit to a psychological evaluation.

The Mother filed a petition for emergency hearing after Children and Youth Services showed no sign of child abuse or that Child was aware of the Mother’s OnlyFans activity. The Mother’s petition was denied, but she was given back partial physical custody of Child every other weekend from Friday to Sunday evening, with Father retaining sole legal custody.

In 2020, Mother asked to modify the order asking the court for both shared legal and physical custody. In 2023, the family court awarded shared legal and physical custody of Child. At the hearing, the judge found there was no evidence that OnlyFans activity caused Child any harm, and ruled that the court was not permitted to “judge a parent’s private adult behavior outside the presence of the child”.

The Father appealed.

Florida Child Custody and OnlyFans

I’ve written about child custody issues before. In Florida, “custody” is a concept called parental responsibility, which can be either shared between parents, or one parent  can be given sole responsibility.

In child custody cases generally, shared parental responsibility is a relationship ordered by a court in which both parents retain their full parental rights and responsibilities. Under shared parental responsibility, parents are required to confer with each other and jointly make major decisions affecting the welfare of their child.

In Florida, shared parental responsibility is the preferred relationship between parents when a marriage or a relationship ends. This year, Florida enacted a law making a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing of a child is in the best interests. To rebut this presumption, a party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that equal time-sharing is not in the best interests of the child.

Determining the best interests of a child is not entirely subjective. Instead, the decision is based on an evaluation of certain factors affecting the welfare and interests of the child and the circumstances of the child’s family. Some of those factors concern the moral fitness, and the mental and physical health of the parents.

Not Only Fans

On appeal, the Father argued the family judge did not appropriately consider Mother’s “poor life choices” when granting Mother shared legal and physical custody of Child based upon her prior OnlyFans site.

The appellate court noted the OnlyFans account was deleted in 2020, she has never posted adult content on any other site, her interactions with her patrons on the site were entirely virtual and solely through her pseudonymous username, and she never created content in her home when the  Child was present.

Additionally, the child investigation revealed that Father’s child abuse report was “unfounded.” In reviewing the best interests of the child factors in Pennsylvania, the trial court found that “none of the custody factors include the morality of a parent’s judgment or values.”

The trial court then determined that Mother’s OnlyFans activities were irrelevant to the court’s custody analysis because Father failed to establish the Mother’s activities on OnlyFans caused Child any harm. The record showed the Child was not aware of Mother’s activities. The Father presented no evidence to prove otherwise, and did not present evidence showing Mother’s OnlyFans activities raised any safety concerns because the Mother participated anonymously with her location shielded.

The appellate court agreed that a parent’s morality is not an enumerated custody factor in Pennsylvania, and the Court correctly rejected consideration of a parent’s morality or sexual lifestyle when determining custody where there was no finding of an adverse impact on the child.

The opinion is here.

Father Must Share Custody with Mother’s Boyfriend

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

In a custody decision that will surprise many family lawyers, a Pennsylvania court ordered the natural father of his child to equally share custody of his child with the Mother’s boyfriend. It is a decision that is putting the nature of parental rights back in the news. Will the natural father’s appeal be granted?

Custody Boyfriend

Loco Parentis

The child, S.J., was born in April 2020. At the time, the mother was in a relationship with a man named Kareem Smith. At the time of S.J.’s birth, Kareem thought he was the biological father.

Then the mother died in May 2021, and her boyfriend continued to act as the father.

Victor got a paternity test which confirmed that he, not Kareem, was the biological father of S.J. The Mother’s boyfriend, Kareem, was merely acting in loco parentis – a Latin term meaning “in place of a parent.”

About a month after the paternity test results showed he was the natural father, Victor filed an action for sole custody of S.J. against Kareem. A custody hearing was held in February 2023.

Victor’s position was that Kareem was effectively an interloper who was interfering with Victor’s rights as the parent.  The family court held a few proceedings to introduce Victor to S.J.  Afterwards, the family court entered a temporary order.

The temporary order determined that Kareem was a psychological parent of the child, or was in loco parentis status because of his involvement as the child’s perceived father for more than a year. The court then awarded shared legal custody and shared physical custody on a 50/50 basis to the two fathers.

The natural father appealed.

Florida De Facto Parents

I’ve written about parental responsibility in Florida before. Florida uses the parental responsibility concept. Generally, shared parental responsibility is a relationship ordered by a court in which both parents retain their full parental rights and responsibilities.

Under shared parental responsibility, parents are required to confer with each other and jointly make major decisions affecting the welfare of their child. In Florida, shared parental responsibility is the preferred relationship between parents when a marriage or a relationship ends.

The test applied to determine parental responsibility is the best interests of the child. Determining the best interests of a child is no longer entirely subjective. Instead, the decision is based on an evaluation of certain factors affecting the welfare and interests of the child and the circumstances of the child’s family.

Florida courts have considered the role of loco parentis, or psychological parents, like grandparents for instance, in a child’s life. Generally, in a dispute between a natural father and de facto parents, custody can be denied to the natural father only if there is clear and convincing evidence that the natural father abandoned the child, or is unfit, or placing the child with the natural father will be detrimental to the child’s welfare.

Heartbreaker in the Quaker State

On appeal, the Father argued that the trial court erred granting the mother’s boyfriend shared physical and legal custody of the child when the weight of the evidence was against shared custody.

The appellate court noted that in Pennsylvania, a natural parent has a prima facie right to custody, which will be forfeited only if convincing reasons appear that the child’s best interest will be served by an award to the third party.

The appellate court found no basis for changing the custody order because the family court judge found, by clear and convincing evidence, the need for stability and continuity in the child’s life was sufficient to overcome the presumption that custody be awarded to the natural parent. Because of the child’s “need for continuity”, and the fact that the two fathers co-parented well, the court affirmed the shared custody order.

The decision of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania is here.

Florida Releases Three New Child Custody Updates

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Florida just released major new updates to our child custody and timesharing laws. With these new releases, family lawyers can expect a presumption in favor of a equal timesharing, some bug fixes, and overall improvements to enhance your user experience.

Child Custody Update

Florida Child Custody and Timesharing

Florida courts have consistently ruled that a parent’s right to the care and custody of his or her child is an important interest that is given deference unless there is some powerful countervailing interest requiring the child’s protection. Each parent also has responsibilities for their children, including supervision, health and safety, education, care, and protection.

Child custody in Florida is broken down into two distinct components: parental responsibility (which is decision-making) and timesharing (physical custody and visitation rights). Both components must be incorporated into a “parenting plan.”

Although the right to integrity of the family is among one of the most fundamental rights, when parents divorce or separate, the parents’ rights are subject to the overriding concern for the ultimate welfare their children. We call this, the “best interest” test.

Florida did not have a presumption in favor of any specific timesharing schedule. In establishing timesharing, the court always considered the best interests of the child and evaluated all factors affecting the welfare and interests of the child and the circumstances of the family.

What’s new in the latest release?

Equal Timesharing

One of the latest updates just released is a new presumption in favor of equal timesharing for both parents. According to the release notes:

There is a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing of a minor child is in the best interests of the minor child. To rebut this presumption, a party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that equal timesharing is not in the best interests of the minor child. Except when a time-sharing schedule is agreed to by the parties and approved by the court, the court must evaluate all of the factors set forth in subsection (3) and make specific written findings of fact schedule when creating or modifying a timesharing schedule.

With this new update, Florida has created a rebuttable presumption that equal timesharing is in the best interest of the child at issue. As such, a court must operate under the rebuttable presumption in favor of equal timesharing when creating or modifying a parenting plan.

In order to overcome the new law’s rebuttable presumption, a party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that equal timesharing is not in the best interests of the minor child.

The new law still generally requires a court to evaluate all factors listed under the statute, however now it requires the court to provide written findings of fact for such factors.

Modifications

A new bug fix is an update to the procedure for modification of parenting plans. Generally, a court may only modify a parenting plan and timesharing schedule after a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances has been established.

The requirement for a substantial change in circumstances promotes finality in family cases, and reflects the general belief that stability is good for children. The test to modify timesharing of a minor child is to prove circumstances have substantially and materially changed since the original custody determination; the change was not reasonably contemplated by the parties; and the child’s best interests justify changing custody.

Demonstrating a substantial change in circumstances is an extraordinary burden on users. But the burden was a design feature not a flaw. The heavy burden is intended to preclude parties from continually disrupting the lives of children by initiating repeated custody disputes.

However, when there have been significant changes affecting the well-being of the child, especially when the change of circumstances has occurred over a substantial period of time, changes may be necessary.

The new update streamlines the modification experience by removing the requirement that a party who demonstrates the alleged substantial and material change in circumstances which warrants modification of a parenting plan or timesharing schedule, must also demonstrate that the change be unanticipated.

Relocation

Another bug fix attempts to streamline the user’s relocation experience. There is currently no presumption in favor of or against a request to relocate with a child when the relocation will materially affect the current timesharing and contact with the other parent.

But simply relocating alone was not considered a substantial change in circumstances to warrant modification. If you were the user seeking to modify timesharing, you still had to overcome the substantial change test before a court could address the modification.

In custody disputes involving the relocation of a parent, courts generally conclude that the relocation does not amount to a substantial change if the relocation is not a significant distance away from the child’s current location. As such, a parent’s relocation alone is not considered a sufficient to trigger a modification of timesharing and custody under current law.

Under the new law, if the parents of a child live more than 50 miles apart when the last order establishing time-sharing is entered, and a parent subsequently moves within 50 miles of the other parent, then that move may be considered a substantial and material change in circumstances for the purpose of modifying the time-sharing schedule.

The move does not need to be unanticipated to warrant a modification of the time-sharing schedule. However, modification of the time-sharing schedule may not be permitted if the modification is not in the best interests of the child after an analysis of the statutory factors.

The new statutory amendments are here.

Version 61.13 will be available July 1st.

Religion Custody and Transgender Children

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Whether a parent’s religion and religious beliefs can impact their ability to exercise child custody over transgender children is in the news. In Maryland, a father’s strict religious beliefs clashed with his children’s sexual orientation so much, the court had to step in to resolve the issue.

custody transgender

Fatti Maschii, Parole Femine

A Maryland couple with two children divorced in 2012. As part of their settlement, the parents agreed to joint legal custody. The Mother was to have primary physical custody, and the Father agreed to visitation every other weekend.

In 2022, Mother filed for a protective order for herself and on behalf of her two children, then aged 15 and 12. The Mother alleged the Father had caused her and the children mental injury based on abusive texts and emails he had sent to them.

At the injunction hearing, the Mother testified her older son told her he believed he was transgender. The Mother denied steering him toward identifying as transgender, but admitted she actively supported him by arranging for therapy and attending meetings of Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.

When the child told his Father that he identified as transgender, the Father opposed his son’s decision and refused to call him by his preferred name. Then the child began engaging in the self-harming behavior of “cutting.”

The Father then texted his child:

“What is your email address? I’m sending you an email and I’m copying your mother and my lawyer. I’m t[ir]ed the BS manipulations. Your grandmother doesn’t call you S[.] and neither does either one of your aunts and uncle up here and for some reason my Christian beliefs are being attacked, so the intent is for a trial, so that everyone can understand what your mother that has manipulated a wedge after you and I had already came to an agreement [to call you a shortened version of your given name]. Thanks[.]”

Then the Mother testified that their second child, the younger of the two, told her he believed he was gay. The Father texted the younger child:

You can text me anytime. Just between us and call if you ever need to talk. I will tell you like I told you before—you are being heavily manipulated and influenced by your mother and sister. Son. Listen to your dad and our father who created us (God) in this matter. Please please do not allow these demons you are surrounded by influence you. Pray my son. For protection. I love you. Dad.

Father admitted: his relationship with his children is contentious, that he called the police after Mother took the children to a Pride Parade, and that he then called the Crisis Hotline and Legal Aid. He testified that he is concerned for his children’s souls and has no intent to harm them.

The trial judge found that, while the older child was “worried” he was not upset. However, the court found the younger child was “frightened” by Father’s behavior and “worries” that Father does not believe him about his sexual identity, believing instead that it has to do with Mother’s manipulation.

The court entered the protective order as to the younger child and denied the petition as to Mother and the older child. The Court prohibited the Father from abusing or threatening to abuse the younger child; from entering his residence; limited his visitation, and prohibited the Father from sending abusive texts about sexual orientation and/or religion. Father appealed.

Florida Child Custody

I’ve written about child custody and transgender issues before. Florida, unlike Maryland, does not have legal custody, but the parenting plan concept. For purposes of establishing a parenting plan, the best interest of the child is the primary consideration.

In Florida, the best interests of the child are determined by evaluating all of the factors affecting the welfare and interests of the particular minor child and the circumstances of that family. Some of the factors a Florida court looks to include the demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship, and the mental and physical health of the parents. None of the statutory factors involve the gender or sex of the parent and child.

In Florida, the court must order that the parental responsibility for a minor child be shared by both parents unless shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child. Detriment to a child could take the form of child abuse.

Child abuse is a defined term in Florida. In part, child abuse can mean injury to the intellectual or psychological capacity of a child as evidenced by a discernible and substantial impairment in the ability of the child to function within the normal range of performance and behavior as supported by expert testimony.

Strong Deeds, Gentle Words

In Maryland, the primary goals of their injunction statute are preventative, protective and remedial, not punitive. A judge may issue a protective order if they find abuse. In Maryland, “abuse” of a child is defined as the physical or mental injury of a child under circumstances that indicate that the child’s health or welfare is harmed or at substantial risk of being harmed.

On appeal the Father argued there was insufficient evidence to find that he caused mental injury to his younger child, or that he did so intentionally. But the appellate court ruled it was the younger child’s fear regarding Father’s views about his sexual orientation – and the Father’s seeming inability to see that his views caused and could cause a substantial risk of harm to his son – that the trial court had attempted to address in its order. Accordingly, the trial court’s restraining order was affirmed on appeal.

The unpublished Maryland appellate court opinion is here.

 

Calling a Stepparent Dad

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

An important aspect of child custody arises when families reorganize, and whether it is okay for a child to start calling a stepparent “dad” and “mom”. In a recent Pennsylvania case the issue was whether a family judge can order the Child to only call her biological parents “Dad” and “Mom”.

Stepparent Name

Name Calling

A Mother and Father were married in 2012, welcomed their first and only child O.K. in 2013, and then separated five years later. Mother was a client assistant and later a stay-at-home Mom. She re-married her new husband, (the Stepfather), with whom she has two children.

In 2018, the couple agreed to a week-on/week-off shared custody schedule that continued until 2020, when the family court reduced the Father’s timesharing to the first, second, and fourth full weekends of each month during the school year.

In 2021 the Father tried to modify custody and return to a week-on/week-off shared physical custody schedule and sole legal custody as to educational decision-making.

At the modification trial, the Mother testified to having the Child baptized without notifying Father and contrary to his known wishes, and that she would not discourage the Child from calling Stepfather “dad” or “daddy”. The family judge found Mother’s actions were part of a pattern of to diminish Father’s place and authority in the Child’s life.

The family judge modified custody and returned the parties to a week-on/week-off physical custody schedule, denied the Father’s request for sole legal custody concerning educational decision-making, and importantly, held the Mother in contempt.

Mother moved to reconsider, asking the court to vacate the provisions compelling co-parent counseling and requiring the parties to correct the Child’s use of names like “Mom” and “Dad” for the parties’ significant others.

The trial court then granted Father limited sole legal custody to make medical decisions as to whether the Child receives the COVID-19 vaccination and any subsequent boosters of that vaccine and denied Mother’s emergency motion for reconsideration and injunctive relief. The Mother appealed.

Florida Parental Responsibility and Stepparents

I’ve written about parental responsibility in Florida before. In Florida, “custody” is a concept we have done away with. Florida uses the parental responsibility concept. Generally, shared parental responsibility is a relationship ordered by a court in which both parents retain their full parental rights and responsibilities.

Under shared parental responsibility, parents are required to confer with each other and jointly make major decisions affecting the welfare of their child. In Florida, shared parental responsibility is the preferred relationship between parents when a marriage or a relationship ends. In fact, courts are instructed to order parents to share parental responsibility of a child unless it would be detrimental to the child.

At the trial, the test applied is the best interests of the child. Determining the best interests of a child is no longer entirely subjective. Instead, the decision is based on an evaluation of certain factors affecting the welfare and interests of the child and the circumstances of the child’s family.

A stepparent does not acquire all of the rights or assume all of the obligations of a child’s natural parent in Florida. Stepparents have the difficult task of raising a child that is not biologically or legally their own. Sometimes, stepparents are responsible for providing love, financial support, and supervision when there is an absentee natural parent. When a stepparent remarries and wants to have legal rights in connection with the spouse’s child, adoption is the right path.

The Constitution and Names

On appeal, the Mother argued it was wrong to restrict the child to referring only to her biological parents and “dad” or “mom” in that it violated the Child’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

In custody matters, the paramount concern is the best interest of the child involved. However, in cases raising First Amendment issues, a court has to examine the  record to make sure the judgment does not violate free expression.

Generally, content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively unconstitutional and are subject to strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny requires the government to prove the restrictions are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.

While a state has an interest in protecting the physical and mental health of a child, that interest is not triggered unless a court finds that the restricted speech caused or will cause harm to a child’s welfare.

The family judge ordered:

“The parties shall not encourage the Child to refer to anyone other than the parties as Mother, Mom, Father, Dad, [et cetera.] In the event the Child refers to a party’s spouse or significant other in such a way, that party shall correct the Child.”

The court restricted the Child’s use of the terms “Mom,” “Dad,” to the Child’s biological parents. Accordingly, the order was a content-based restriction subject to strict scrutiny.

Father testified that the Child is calling Stepfather “Dad” or “Daddy,” a term that applied only to Father during the Child’s first five years of life – years during which Father testified he was the Child’s “stay-at-home Dad.”

Mother testified that it is “unreasonable” to expect the Child, at age 8, to call Stepfather by a name different from what her two younger half-siblings will use in the future.

The court held it was unreasonable for Mother to expect that Father share the title “Dad” with Stepfather, in light of evidence that Mother has acted to diminish Father’s role in the Child’s life, such as leaving him in the dark regarding a baptism.

The family judge’s imposing a restriction on the Child’s speech, did so in an attempt to further the state interest in protecting the Child’s mental and psychological well-being by maintaining and strengthening the strained relationship between Child and Father.

However, the restrictions were not narrowly tailored to further the state’s compelling interest without a finding by that the use of the term “Dad” or “Daddy” to refer to Stepfather caused harm or will cause harm to the Child.

Indeed, the text of the trial court’s order suggests that the trial court was concerned that the parents’ mutual ill-will and mistrust may have cultivated unhealthy bonds between the parents and the Child, not that the terms the Child used to refer to her parents and stepparents were central to that process.

Without a finding that the Child’s use of the terms “Dad” and “Daddy” to refer to Stepfather posed a tangible risk of harm to the Child, the appellate court was constrained to vacate the content-based restriction.

The opinion is here.

Pet Custody in Tennessee

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

The issue of pet custody is increasingly becoming big news in many jurisdictions as people’s views of their relationships with pets change. A new proposed Tennessee pet custody bill could bring a pet custody and visitation law to the Smokey Mountains.

pet custody tennesee

Pet Custody at its Best

Generally, when couples divorce, current law has always been that pets are treated pretty much the same as ownership of your living room couch would be – or any other piece of property for that matter. There has traditionally never been a thing called pet visitation at common law.

Two Tennessee state lawmakers are now trying to change the traditional way of dealing with pets in divorce with some new legislation. According to reports, the new bill would allow a family law judge to determine pet custody based on what’s in the best interest for the wellbeing of a pet.

Tennessee HB467/SB568 essentially states that the family law court may provide for the ownership or joint ownership of any pet or companion animal owned by the parties, taking into consideration the well-being of the animal. If passed in its current state, the act would take effect July 1, 2023.

Tennessee Representative, Caleb Hemmer, a Nashville Democrat, said he tackled the issue because custody of a pet can be a deeply emotional issue.

“For many people, pets are like family members and even cared for like children. It only makes sense for courts to treat them the same way.”

Politicians began to research passing a bill after they personally lived through the painful experience of losing custody of the family dog during a divorce.

Florida Pet Custody

I’ve written on the development of pet custody cases and statutes around the world before. Pet custody cases are becoming more and more prevalent internationally because lawmakers and advocacy groups are promoting the notion that the legal system should act in the best interests of animals. This is due, in part, because pet ownership has increased.

Pets are becoming a recognized part of the family. Some would argue they’re a modern couple’s new kids. About 15 years ago, states began to allow people to leave their estates to care for their pets. Recently, courts have gone so far as to award shared custody, visitation and even alimony payments to pet owners.

Florida doesn’t have pet custody or visitation laws. Florida courts are already overwhelmed with the supervision of custody, visitation, and support matters related to the protection of children.

Not all states have ruled out a visitation schedule for dogs like Florida. For instance, while Texas also views dogs as personal property, in one case a Texas court authorized visitation. A new California law changed the way pet custody is handled in divorce cases. The law gives judges the power to consider the care and the best interest of the pet when making decisions.

According to a recent survey of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, about 30% of attorneys have seen a decrease over the past three years in pet custody cases in front of a judge.

Over the last decade, the question of pet custody has become more prevalent, particularly when it involves a two-income couple with no children who shared responsibility for, and are both attached to, the pet.

Smiling in the Smokey Mountains

The issue of pet custody is gaining traction around the U.S. and the world as pet ownership climbs. The COVID pandemic help to further propel pet ownership and this issue. A new Forbes Advisor survey found that an overwhelming majority of pet owners – about 78 percent – acquired their pets during the pandemic.

Already about five states and Washington D.C. have passed similar pet custody laws. The current bill proposal by Tennessee politicians Hemmer and Yarbro applies to any pet owned by a married couple.

The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers has repeatedly reported that there’s been an ever increase in arguments over pet custody in recent years. Additionally, the drafters of the Tennessee bill want more jurisdictions to pass pet custody laws.

The Axios Nashville article is here.