DECiSionS , DECiSionS , DECiSionS ….
Marital & Family law Section Chair : ShirinRustomji – ShirinRustomji , P . A .
In the family law arena , intense hostility between parties is no surprise , particularly when children are involved . This animosity often breeds beliefs that the other parent cannot make responsible decisions for the child .
As part of shared parental responsibility , “ the court may consider the expressed desires of the parents and may grant to one party the ultimate responsibility for specific aspects of the child ’ s welfare or may divide those responsibilities between the parties based on the best interests of the child . Areas of responsibility may include education , health care , and any other responsibilities that the court finds unique to a particular family .” 1
While the statutory language refers to “ any other responsibilities ,” in ordering ultimate decision-making authority , the court must be specific , refraining from using terms such as “ including , but not limited to ” and “ other responsibilities unique to this family .” 2 Awarding a parent such authority on all child-related issues essentially nullifies shared parental responsibility . 3
In addition to ensuring specificity , there must be a strong justification for such an award . In A . V . v . T . L . L ., a mother sought ultimate decision-making authority
over educational and medical issues . 4 The trial court found that the child ’ s school should be near the mother . However , geographical location differs from educational decisions . While there was evidence supporting ultimate decision making over the child ’ s medical care , “ there was no evidence regarding educational decision making .” 5
In Fazzaro v . Fazzaro , a Final Judgment ordered shared parental responsibility , but gave the mother “ final decisionmaking authority should the parties be unable to reach an agreement on matters pertaining to the minor child ” and ultimate authority on “ areas of education / academic and non-emergency healthcare .” 6 On appeal , the Court found “ no logic or justification for the provisions … over the child ’ s education and nonemergency health care .” 7 Both parents were involved with school , there was minimal evidence regarding education , and none on non-emergency healthcare . The Court acknowledged hostility between the parties , but disagreed that ultimate responsibility was supported because nothing showed a pattern of an inability to co-parent .
A court must order shared parental responsibility unless found to be detrimental to the child . 8 Shared parental responsibility with
in addition to ensuring specificity , there must be a strong justification for such an award . ultimate decisionmaking authority over a specific aspect of the child ’ s welfare is permitted , but even then , it must be designated to a specific aspect of a child ’ s welfare and supported by evidence that it is in the child ’ s best interest . n
1
Fla . Stat . § 61.13 ( 2 )( c )( 3 ) ( emphasis added ).
2
See McClure v . Beck , 212 So . 3d 396 ( Fla . 4th DCA 2017 ); Louis v . Louis , 324 So . 3d 11 ( Fla . 4th DCA 2021 ); Clark v . Stofft , 263 So . 3d 84 ( Fla . 4th DCA 2019 ); Cranney v . Cranney , 206 So . 3d 162 ( Fla . 2d DCA 2016 ).
3
See Id . at 164 .
4
321 So . 3d 940 ( Fla . 2d DCA 2021 ). 5
Id . at 942 . See also Frye v . Cuomo , 296 So . 2d 939 ( Fla . 4th DCA 2020 )( reversing award of educational decision-making authority because even though Father was an alcoholic , he was actively involved in school ).
6
110 So . 3d 49 ( Fla . 2d DCA 2013 ).
7
Id . at 51 .
8
Fla . Stat . § 61.13 ( 2 )( c )( 2 ).
Author : Deborah L . Thomson – The Women ’ s Law Group , P . L .
4 2 M a y - J u n 2 0 2 2 | H C B a L a W y E R