Tag: 50/50 custody

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.

Free Speech, Child Custody, and Insults

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Free speech can be an issue in any child custody case when parents hurl insults at each other in front of their children. Because it is not in the children’s best interest, family judges can order parents not to disparage the other parent in front of the children. One Indianapolis court recently had to consider whether an anti-disparagement order went too far.

Free Speech Custody

Start Your Engines

After several years of marriage, Yaima Israel, filed for divorce from her husband Jamie Israel. After the trial, the family court judge decided that joint legal custody was an “unworkable” option based on the parents’ inability to agree about their child’s health, education and welfare. As a result, Yaima was awarded sole legal custody.

The family court’s decree also contained a non-disparagement clause. Family courts sometimes enjoin speech that expressly or implicitly criticizes the other parent.

In another case for example, a mother was stripped of custody partly because she truthfully told her 12-year-old that her ex-husband, who had raised the daughter from birth, wasn’t in fact the girl’s biological father.

In the recent Indianapolis case, the order prohibited either parent from “making disparaging comments about the other in writing or conversation to or in the presence of child.

However, the order also prohibited insulting the other parent in front of friends, family members, doctors, teachers, associated parties, co-workers, employers, the parenting coordinator, media, the press, or anyone else. All kinds of speech was banned, including “negative statements, criticisms, critiques, insults[,] or other defamatory comments.”

The Husband challenged the judge’s non-disparagement clause that restrained them from ever making disparaging remarks about one another, regardless of whether the child was present.

Florida Child Custody and Free Speech

I’ve written about free speech in family cases before. Family courts have a lot of power to protect children. The “best interests of the child” test — the standard applied in all Florida child custody disputes between parents — gives family court judges a lot of discretion to ban speech which can harm children. Accordingly, Florida courts have to balance a parent’s right of free expression against the state’s interest in assuring the well-being of minor children.

In Florida, parents have had their rights to free speech limited or denied for various reasons. In one case, a mother went from primary caregiver to supervised visits – under the nose of a time-sharing supervisor. The trial judge also allowed her daily telephone calls with her daughter, supervised by the Father.

The Mother was Venezuelan, and because the Father did not speak Spanish, the court ordered: “Under no circumstances shall the Mother speak Spanish to the child.”

The judge was concerned about the Mother’s comments, after the Mother “whisked” the child away from the time-sharing supervisor in an earlier incident and had a “private” conversation with her in a public bathroom. The Mother was also bipolar and convicted of two crimes. The Florida appeals court reversed the restriction. Ordering a parent not to speak Spanish violates the freedom of speech and right to privacy.

Florida law tries to balance the burden placed on the right of free expression essential to the furtherance of the state’s interests in promoting the best interests of children. In other words, in that balancing act, the best interests of children can be a compelling state interest justifying a restraint of a parent’s right of free speech.

But some have argued that if parents in intact families have the right to speak to their children without the government restricting their speech, why don’t parents in broken families have the same rights?

The Constitutional Brickyard

The Indianapolis appellate court ruled that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.

Restraining orders and injunctions that forbid future speech activities, such as non-disparagement orders, are classic examples of prior restraints. Non-disparagement orders are, by definition, a prior restraint on speech. Prior restraints on speech are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on free speech rights.

While a prior restraint is not per se unconstitutional, it does come to a court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.

To determine whether a prior restraint is constitutional under the First Amendment, the court considers: (a) ‘the nature and extent’ of the speech in question, (b) ‘whether other measures would be likely to mitigate the effects of unrestrained’ speech, and (c) ‘how effectively a restraining order would operate to prevent the threatened danger.’”

There is a compelling government interest in protecting children from being exposed to disparagement between their parents. To the extent the non-disparagement clause prohibits both parents from disparaging the other in Child’s presence, the order furthers the compelling State interest in protecting the best interests of Child and does not violate the First Amendment.

But the non-disparagement clause in this case went far beyond furthering that compelling interest because it prohibited the parents from making disparaging comments about the other in the presence of anyone – even when the child was not present.

In the final lap, the court of appeals reversed the portion of the non-disparagement clause including “…friends, family members, doctors, teachers, associated parties, co-workers, employers, the parenting coordinator, media, the press, or anyone” as an unconstitutional prior restraint.

The Indiana court of appeals decision is here.

 

Equal Timesharing Bill Blowing through Tallahassee

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

The winds of change are blowing as the latest equal timesharing bill, CS/HB 1395, moves through Tallahassee. Many parents, lawyers, psychologists and other experts wonder whether Florida will start requiring equal timesharing in all child custody cases.

Equal Timesharing

Typhoon Timesharing

It seems as if each new Florida legislative season has turned into a new hurricane season, dropping invasive lobbyists into Tallahassee to change our native, home-grown child custody and alimony laws.

Not surprisingly, once again the equal timesharing bill is hidden inside an alimony reform bill. Regarding alimony, Florida currently recognizes five main types of alimony: temporary, bridge-the-gap, rehabilitative, durational, and permanent.

In determining the type, amount, duration, and later modification or termination of an alimony award, the court has broad discretion but may only award alimony after initially determining that one spouse needs alimony and the other spouse is able to pay alimony.

For alimony purposes, this year’s House Bill increases presumptions relating to the length of a marriage, changes the types of alimony available, prohibits an award of alimony if the payor has met certain requirements for retirement before filing for divorce and prohibits an award of permanent alimony.

But few people – other than the experts and lawyers studying the bill – know that the alimony reform bill also creates a presumption that equal timesharing is in the best interest of a minor child. If passed, House Bill 1395, would codify into law a presumption of 50/50 timesharing between divorced parents. While this sounds fair, it poses a real risk to children.

Florida Timesharing

I’ve written on the legislative efforts to change to an equal timesharing state before. Historically, Florida courts have consistently ruled that a parent’s desire and right to the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children is an important interest that warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.

Florida law provides broad guidelines to assist courts in determining parenting and time-sharing of children based on the best interests of the child standard. It has been the public policy of Florida that each child has frequent and continuing contact with both parents after separation or divorce, and to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities, and joys, of childrearing.

To meet that state policy, there has not been a presumption for or against the father or mother of the child or for or against any specific timesharing schedule when creating or modifying the parenting plan of the child, and no presumption in favor of a specific time-sharing schedule when the parties are unable to agree.

Just as each divorce is unique, and is treated in a unique way, each timesharing schedule for a family is treated in a unique way for that family. By taking each case individually, you have a better chance of creating a parenting plan that best fits the children involved.

Winds of Change?

But now Florida is facing a Category 5 change. House Bill 1395 amends Florida law to create a presumption that equal time-sharing (commonly referred to as “50/50 time-sharing”) is in the best interests of a minor child common to both parties unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. This would be for every case, instead of the case-by-case basis looking into the details of what is best for kids.

This year’s legislative session started on January 11, 2022 and is scheduled to wrap up on March 11, 2022. The bill provides an effective date of July 1, 2022.

The Tallahassee Democrat article is here.