Tag: 50/50 timesharing

Paternity and Celebrity

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Paternity meets celebrity after rocker, Dave Grohl, announces he is welcoming a child, but his wife of 21 years is not the mother. Dave is rumored to have already retained a divorce lawyer. Besides the couple’s raw emotions, what are some of the family law issues involved when a spouse has a child outside of the marriage?

Celebrity Paternity

I have a confession to make

Dave Grohl was the drummer for grunge band Nirvana, and is the founder, lead singer, guitarist, and principal songwriter of the Foo Fighters. Dave is recognized as the father of rock ’n roll these days: he’s talented, family-oriented, and beloved by fans, musicians and divorce attorneys alike. His nickname is “the nicest dude in rock.”

Dave and his wife Jordyn Blum met in 2001 when she was working as a producer at MTV. They married in 2003. They share three kids. His previous marriage ended in 1997. This week Dave’s reputation may have taken a hit after he announced in a post that he was having a child outside his marriage:

“I’ve recently become the father of a new baby daughter, born outside of my marriage. I plan to be a loving and supportive parent to her. I love my wife and my children, and I am doing everything I can to regain their trust and earn their forgiveness. We’re grateful for your consideration toward all the children involved, as we move forward together.”

The decision by Dave to make a pre-emptive announcement may well have been an attempt to control the narrative, something that crisis communications experts say is savvy. But there are also important family law issues when you have an extra-marital relationship which results in the birth of a child.

Florida Paternity Law

I have written about Florida family law matters, such as paternity, before. When a child is born during a marriage, the legal duty to support that child presumptively rests with the married couple. This presumption protects the welfare of the child. In Dave’s case, it is unclear if the natural mother of Dave’s child is married to another man.

Florida has specific laws relating to children born out of wedlock. Right now, Dave would be considered a “putative father”, meaning someone who may be the biological father of a child, whose paternity has not been established, and the child’s mother was unmarried when the child was conceived and born.

Generally, the parents of a child born out of wedlock, after paternity is established, are the natural guardians of the child, and are entitled and subject to the rights and responsibilities of parents.

But until the father has established paternity under Florida law, the mother of a child born out of wedlock is the natural guardian of the child. Before a court determines paternity, the mother is entitled to primary residential care and custody of the child unless the court enters an order stating otherwise.

Monkey wrench

The announcement was met with different reactions. Some fans took it as a personal affront. Mockery and memes of a sad-looking Ben Affleck also proliferated online, even as Dave pleaded for “consideration toward all the children involved, as we move forward together.”

The level of upset by fans speaks to Dave’s place in the music world, where he has reached high levels of adoration and respect. He is one of just a small group of musicians enshrined into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame with two bands.

But Dave is not the only celebrity to have paternity issues. He joins a list that includes Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bob Marley, and Eric Clapton. While Dave’s celebrity paternity announcement may have gotten ahead of the news, it also left several unanswered legal questions.

The Newsweek article is here.

Grandparent Visitation and Remarriage

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

In Ohio, an order granting grandparent visitation comes into question after the remarriage of the child’s father. Does the father’s remarriage, and the adoption of the child by the new stepmother, cut off the grandmother’s court ordered visitation rights?

Grandparent Visitation

The Heart of It All

The child. L.S. was born in 2014, to unmarried parents. In 2019, a court awarded John Snyder – the child’s natural father – legal custody. At the same time, Zadunajsky, L.S.’s paternal grandmother, was granted companionship rights with the child.

Then in 2021, Snyder filed a motion to terminate or modify the grandmother’s visitation order because the child has now been adopted by his stepmother, and there is an intact family. The lower court granted the Father’s Motion for Termination without any hearing or the proffering of any evidence.

Instead, the magistrate ruled as a matter of law that in Ohio:

Once the adoption took place, the Paternal Grandmother no longer had standing to seek visitation. Once an adoption order has been entered, all grandparent visitation rights are terminated.

The lower court held there was no case law in Ohio that allows a court to grant or maintain established visitation once an adoption is granted. The legislature has not provided grandparent visitation in the case of an adoption.

This legal reality is very frustrating to courts because the main issue should be what is in the best interest of the child. The lower court also held that the Paternal Grandmother would only have standing to seek visitation upon the death of Father or the divorce of the stepmother.

The grandmother appealed arguing that an adoption by the step-mother of the child was a proper basis for terminating the pre-existing visitation of the paternal grandmother.

Florida Grandparent Visitation

Under current law 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. If only one parent is deceased, missing, or in a permanent vegetative state, the other parent must have been convicted of a felony or a violent offense in order for a grandparent to be able to petition for visitation.

Additionally, a Florida court has to also find that the grandparent has established a prima facie case that the surviving parent is unfit or poses a danger of significant harm to the child. If that burden is not met, the court must dismiss the grandparent’s petition.

In 2022, Florida amended the grandparent visitation law as a result of the murder of FSU Professor Dan Markel. Supporters of the amendment call it the “Markel Act.” Professor Markel was shot to death in his driveway by hitmen hired by his ex-brother in law. His ex-mother in law was recently arrested at Miami International Airport after attempting to board a one way flight to Vietnam.

The new law creates a rebuttable presumption for grandparent or step-grandparent visitation, but only in cases where one parent has been found criminally liable for the death of the other parent, or “civilly liable for an intentional tort causing the death” of the other parent.

The presumption may be overcome only if the court finds that visitation is not in the child’s best interests. The bill does not distinguish between biological grandparents and step-grandparents.

Somewhere in Ohio

The Ohio appellate court agreed with the grandmother and reversed. The opening words of the statute exempt a spouse and the relatives of the spouse from the effects of a final decree of adoption. As Snyder was spouse of the adopting stepparent and Zadunajsky was a relative of Snyder, they are exempt from those effects.

The Father also argued that previous cases affirmed divesting biological grandparents of their visitation and companionship rights. However, the legislature’s intent was to find families for children. The legislature was concerned that if adoptive parents are forced to agree to share parenting responsibilities with people they don’t know, potential adoptive parents will be deterred from adopting. But that legislative intent did not apply to the relatives of the spouse/biological parent in a stepparent adoption.

On remand, the family court may consider whether the continuation of Zadunajsky’s companionship rights is in the best interest of the child in light of the stepparent adoption.

The opinion 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.

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.

Pet Custody in China

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Pet custody is sweeping the world. In the People’s Republic of China, a recent divorce settlement was stalled after the divorcing couple was unable to agree on who was entitled to custody of the pet corgi.

Pet Custody

The New Kids in Divorce?

The couple, surnamed Xu and Li, from Quzhou city in Zhejiang, one of the more wealthy provinces in eastern China, agreed to get divorced in April this year. The parties reached agreement on the distribution of their joint assets and debts after their seven-year marriage, with one furry exception.

The couple have no children, but both are enthusiastic animal lovers. Accordingly, custody of a pet corgi dog they had raised together became a central focus of their divorce.

The family court helped the couple divide up joint assets, including property and vehicles quickly, as neither party had any objections. However, when it came to their pet dog, the court was surprised that both demanded full custody of the pet corgi.

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. That’s because lawmakers and advocacy groups are promoting the notion that the legal system should act in the best interests of animals as pet ownership increases.

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.

Quzhou’s Corgi Custody Case

The woman, Xu, told the court that she deserved ownership of the corgi. She testified that not only did she buy the dog, but that she raised the corgi by herself. The corgi has become a part of her family and has been by her side ever since, she claimed.

In undermining the Husband’s custody request, she added that her ex-husband Li didn’t take responsibility for looking after the corgi. She described him as a workaholic, who in his spare time played video games.

Although Li acknowledged that he did not feed the animal as often as his ex-wife, or clean up after it, he said he often walked the dog and considered it to be his child.

The court accepted that the corgi was a joint asset in the marriage, but one which couldn’t be divided easily. Eventually, the couple reached an agreement that the corgi would live with the woman, while every month Li should pay alimony to her for taking care of the dog. If the animal became ill, they must share the dog’s medical expenses. Li was given legal visitation rights to the corgi.

After the story was reported, it caused widespread online conversation about the fate of pets in a divorce. One person commented: “A pet is a part of the family, it’s understandable the divorcing couple wanted to fight for it.” Another said: “Now that more couples give up on having children, keeping pets as kids will probably rise.”

Data showed that in 2021 the number of pet owners in China had reached 68.44 million. In the U.S. roughly 70 percent of households own a pet, with dogs being the most numerous pet and salt water fish coming in last.

The South China Morning Post article is here.

 

Florida Grandparent Visitation Bill

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Good news for Florida grandparents. The Florida House recently passed a visitation bill with profound meaning for Florida grandparents who have become estranged from their grandchildren after a tragedy. A companion bill, SB 1408, is awaiting a final vote on the Senate calendar.

Grandparent Visitation

Markel Act in the House

Currently in Florida, a grandparent can only be awarded visitation rights with their grandchildren under extremely limited circumstances, such as when a child’s parents are both deceased, missing, or in a permanent vegetative state.

However, when only one parent is deceased, missing, or in a permanent vegetative state, the other parent must have been convicted of a felony or a violent offense in order for a grandparent to be able to petition for visitation.

Additionally, a court would have to find that the grandparent has established a prima facie case that the surviving parent is unfit or poses a danger of significant harm to the child to be entitled to visitation. If that burden is not met, the court must dismiss the grandparent’s petition.

HB 1119 dramatically changes the law of grandparent visitation in Florida. It expands the ability for a grandparent to petition for visitation rights of his or her grandchild in certain narrow circumstances.
The bill does this by changing Florida Statutes to create a rebuttable presumption for granting reasonable visitation with the petitioning grandparent or step-grandparent under certain circumstances.

If a court finds that one parent of a child has been held criminally or civilly liable for the death of the other parent of the child, a rebuttable presumption arises that the grandparent who is the parent of the child’s deceased parent is entitled to reasonable visitation with the grandchild.

The effort behind the bill, informally referred to as “The Markel Act” was inspired in part by the 2014 murder of FSU law professor Dan Markel, who was hunted down and shot in the head by a hitman shortly after dropping Dan dropped his two sons off at preschool.

Prosecutors have publicly identified Markel’s ex-wife, Wendi Adelson, as an alleged “co-conspirator” to the murder, along with her mother and brother. Law enforcement says Adelson’s motive was to relocate to South Florida amid custody battles with Markel. While Adelson family members have not been arrested yet, three others have — the hitman, who was found guilty and sentenced to life; his accomplice, who pleaded guilty and confessed who had hired them; and their intermediary, who faces a retrial in May.

The bill passed the House with a vote of 112-3.

Florida Grandparent Visitation

I have written extensively on grandparent visitation in Florida. In early common law, there was never a right to visitation by non-parents, and Florida has clung to that tradition. That is ironic, as a lot of elderly voters reside in Florida, and politicians have been trying to create visitation rights to grandparent voters here.

Beginning in 1978, the Florida legislature started making changes to the Florida Statutes that granted enforceable rights to visit their grandchildren.

The Florida Supreme Court built a massive wall blocking Florida grandparent visitation rights, explaining that parenting is protected by the right to privacy, a fundamental right, and any intrusion upon that right must be justified by a compelling state interest. In Florida, that compelling state interest was harm to the child:

“[W]e hold that the [s]tate may not intrude upon the parents’ fundamental right to raise their children except in cases where the child is threatened with harm.”

Not too long ago, the Florida Supreme Court held that under the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act any custody determination or visitation determination – including grandparent rights – are protected and enforceable under the PKPA. And, to the extent that the PKPA conflicts with Florida law, the PKPA controls under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution because it is a federal law.

Senate Grandparent Visitation

The Senate companion bill unanimously cleared its committees and heads next to the Senate Floor. Both bills have bipartisan support. Specifically, the Senate Bill creates a presumption that a court may award a grandparent reasonable visitation with a grandchild in cases where the court has found that one parent has been held criminally or civilly liable for the death of the other parent of the grandchild unless not in the child’s best interest.

For five years, while the wheels of justice turned, Markel’s parents, Ruth and Phil, were kept from contact with their grandsons. As Ruth commented:

“We have profound gratitude for the Florida House, in particular Speaker Chris Sprowls, Rep. Jackie Toledo, and the other co-sponsors, for their vision and leadership. There’s nothing more important to us than leaving a record of how deeply we’ve tried to reconnect with our grandsons. Out of our tragedy, we hope to create something meaningful for other families to visit their grandchildren. Today marks a powerful day in this journey.”

Toledo tried to downplay the impact on parent rights by commenting that the Senate was not looking at ways to dismantle the rights of parents but to correct the problem in law when one parent retains custody even when implicated in the death of their co-parent.

Justice for Dan, a grassroots group of friends and allies, praises Speaker Sprowls, the bill sponsors, and members for their action for what it deems a clear message: murder can’t be a solution to custody battles.

The Florida Politics article 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.