<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
     xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
     xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
     xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
     xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
     xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
     xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
    <channel>
        <title><![CDATA[Supervised visitation - Alan R. Burton Attorney at Law]]></title>
        <atom:link href="https://www.alanburtonlaw.com/blog/categories/supervised-visitation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        <link>https://www.alanburtonlaw.com/blog/categories/supervised-visitation/</link>
        <description><![CDATA[Alan R. Burton Attorney at Law's Website]]></description>
        <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 16:58:27 GMT</lastBuildDate>
        
        <language>en-us</language>
        
            <item>
                <title><![CDATA[A Trial Judge Cannot Delegate Its Authority Over Time Sharing to Therapists]]></title>
                <link>https://www.alanburtonlaw.com/blog/trial-judge-cannot-delegate-authority-time-sharing-therapists/</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.alanburtonlaw.com/blog/trial-judge-cannot-delegate-authority-time-sharing-therapists/</guid>
                <dc:creator><![CDATA[Alan R. Burton Attorney at Law]]></dc:creator>
                <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2016 11:00:19 GMT</pubDate>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Parenting Plans and Time Sharing]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Supervised visitation]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Time sharing]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
                
                
                
                
                <description><![CDATA[<p>Never a truer statement has been made then “the buck stops here”, when dealing with time sharing issues in a divorce case. &nbsp;What this means is that the judge must have the final word in all issues which affect minor children, and he does not have the legal authorization to delegate that responsibility to any&hellip;</p>
]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>Never a truer statement has been made then “the buck stops here”, when dealing with time sharing issues in a divorce case. &nbsp;What this means is that the judge must have the final word in all issues which affect minor children, and he does not have the legal authorization to delegate that responsibility to any third party, including a therapist.</p>



<p>The animosity between parents can lead to difficult situations with their minor children. &nbsp;When a parent’s anger adversely affects the minor children, that particular parent may end up with restricted contact with their minor children. &nbsp;When one parent suffers from anxiety or depression, their behavior may have adverse effects on their children. &nbsp;In either one of these scenarios, a therapist might be called in to intervene, and make recommendations to the court as to future prospects for time sharing, if a parents rights have been temporarily restricted.</p>



<p>In <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12012777832923295899&q=39+so3d+453&hl=en&as_sdt=40006" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>Grigsby v. Grigsby, 39 So 3rd 453 (Florida 2nd DCA 2010)</em>,</a> the mother suffered a suspension of her time sharing with her children.  The trial court failed to delineate what was required of the mother in order to reestablish her time sharing.   As a result of the trial court’s failure to delineate, the decision was reversed on appeal.</p>



<p>The <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12012777832923295899&q=39+so3d+453&hl=en&as_sdt=40006" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>Grigsby</em></a> court then went on to state that the court must give the parent the key to reconnecting with his or her children, and that an order that does not set forth the specific steps a parent must take to reestablish time-sharing is deficient because it prevents the parent from knowing what is expected and prevents any successor judge from monitoring the parent’s progress.   A similar ruling was made in the case of <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2613217412655146911&q=160+so3rd+459&hl=en&as_sdt=40006" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>Perez v. Fay, 160 So 3rd 459 (Florida 2nd DCA 2015).</em></a></p>



<p>Your children are the most important people in your life.  Whenever your divorce case involves minor children, and high conflict between the parents, you need the services of a calm attorney capable of diffusing the tension between the parents. <a href="/testimonials/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Alan R. Burton, a Boca Raton divorce attorney with over 40 years of experience</a> has the appropriate demeanor in cases with high conflict.  Call him today and 954-295-9222 for a free consultation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
        
            <item>
                <title><![CDATA[Supervised Visitation and Hearsay]]></title>
                <link>https://www.alanburtonlaw.com/blog/supervised-visitation-and-hear/</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.alanburtonlaw.com/blog/supervised-visitation-and-hear/</guid>
                <dc:creator><![CDATA[Alan R. Burton Attorney at Law]]></dc:creator>
                <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2011 05:00:10 GMT</pubDate>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Custody]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Parenting]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Parenting Plans and Time Sharing]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Supervised visitation]]></category>
                
                
                
                
                <description><![CDATA[<p>Obviously, the courts won’t hesitate to enter any orders when necessary to protect minor children from harm. This would include orders for supervised visitation against a parent if the circumstances warranted this type of relief. In the divorce proceedings between N.W. and M.W., 41 So.3d 383 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2010), the mother alleged that the&hellip;</p>
]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="alignright size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="300" height="200" src="/static/2023/06/whisper-desktop.jpg" alt="Whisper" class="wp-image-484"/></figure>
</div>


<p>Obviously, the courts won’t hesitate to enter any orders when necessary to protect minor children from harm. This would include orders for supervised visitation against a parent if the circumstances warranted this type of relief.</p>



<p>In the divorce proceedings between <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2670622564982379815" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">N.W. and M.W., 41 So.3d 383 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2010),</a> the mother alleged that the father was sexually abusing the parties’ daughter. As a result of those allegations, the father was restricted to supervised visits with his daughter. The father subsequently moved for unsupervised visits, and the mother moved to admit the child’s hearsay testimony regarding the sexual abuse pursuant to section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (2009). The court denied the mother’s request, and re-instated the father’s unsupervised visitation.</p>



<p>The mother filed a timely appeal, and the appellate court reinstated the order for supervised visitation. The court said that the trial court had applied the incorrect standard of law.</p>



<p>The proper standard for admitting hearsay statements of children was succinctly stated in <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14538605604758744633" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">State v. Townsend, 635 So.2d 949, 954 (Fla. 1994).</a> The trial court has responsibility in ensuring that child hearsay statements satisfy a strict standard of reliability before admitting them as evidence. The trial court must make findings that satisfy two criteria:” (1) the source of the information through which the statement was reported must indicate trustworthiness; and (2) the time, content, and circumstances of the statement must reflect that the statement provides sufficient safeguards of reliability.”</p>



<p>As the Townsend case makes clear, the focus on these types of cases is on the person to whom the statement was made by the child and the manner in which the statement was made.</p>



<p>The appellate court also noted that the mother sought to introduce statements made by the child to the mother, the grandmother, a therapist, and a family friend. The trial court’s order was reversed because, as the appellate court found, the trial court made no findings with regard to any of these sources and also failed to address the individual statements and circumstances under which they were made.</p>



<p>The trial court neglected to follow the mandates of the Townsend case, as established by the Supreme Court of Florida.</p>



<p>If you or any of your family members require expertise in the admissibility of hearsay evidence in order to protect a child from harm, you can contact me directly by clicking on my name, <a href="/lawyers/alan-r-burton/">Alan R. Burton, Esq.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>