There are numerous factors that the court will look at in making its determination as to the best interests of the child.  All of these various factors are set forth in Florida Statute 61.13.  You can review the criteria under the statute and examine the nonexclusive list of things the judge will be looking at when you go to court.

What happens in a case, however, when only one biological parent is competing with a relative, for example, a grandparent, for custody and time sharing with a minor child?  How will the court look at a situation like this? Will the judge apply the same standards regarding the best interests of the child in structuring a time sharing or custody arrangement of the child?

There is a different standard that the Court will apply in a case like this.  The Supreme Court of Florida had an opportunity to review a disputed case of custody between a natural parent and a grandparent.  In the case of Richardson v. Richardson,  the Florida Supreme Court stated that the trial judge cannot rely solely on the best interests of the child standard, which is utilized when there are two biological parents or natural parents are litigating between themselves in a custody and time sharing dispute.

In a situation like this, the court engages in a two-step process.  First the court must first decide that whether or not it would be a detriment to the child if the child would remain with the natural parent.  If it would be a detriment, then the court would consider the “best interests of the child”.  To employ any other type of test, would put the grandparents on the same level as a natural parents, which is not authorized under Florida law.

Who has the burden of proof in cases like this?  The burden of proof squarely falls on the shoulders of the grandparent or other part person who is seeking to show that the natural parent is unfit, and that placing the child With that parent in would be a detriment to the welfare of the child.

This standard to be applied under the law, between competing interests of a natural parent and a grandparent was  set forth in the case of LaFleur v. Webster.  The LaFleur case also discusses who has the burden of proof of unfitness of a natural parent.  A natural parent does not have to prove their fitness.  A grandparent must prove the natural parent’s unfitness.

The same rules would apply in any case when a third party, whether a grandparent or not, is seeking custody of a child over the objections of a natural parent.  Their rights simply do not rise to the same level that a natural parent enjoys with their offspring.  It takes more than applying the “best interests of a child” when it comes to situations like this.

Alan R. Burton is a family law attorney with over 40 years of experience, practicing in Boca Raton, Florida. Seek his advice by calling him today at 954-295-9222 on all issues regarding minor children, or any other issue related to family law matters.

The animosity between parents can lead to difficult situations with their minor children.  When a parent’s anger adversely affects the minor children, that particular parent may end up with restricted contact with their minor children.  When one parent suffers from anxiety or depression, their behavior may have adverse effects on their children.  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.

In Grigsby v. Grigsby, 39 So 3rd 453 (Florida 2nd DCA 2010), 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.

The Grigsby 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 Perez v. Fay, 160 So 3rd 459 (Florida 2nd DCA 2015).

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. Alan R. Burton, a Boca Raton divorce attorney with over 40 years of experience has the appropriate demeanor in cases with high conflict.  Call him today and 954-295-9222 for a free consultation.

There is a basic premise under the law that states that absent an emergency, failure to give notice to the other party is tantamount to a denial of due process of law.   The appellate courts throughout the State of Florida routinely reverse temporary custody orders entered without notice to the other party, or with insufficient notice, or with insufficient opportunity to be heard.  Putting it a different way, there are at least two sides to every story, and both parties should be afforded the opportunity to present their position to a judge, prior to the Court making any adjustments regarding a previously existing time-sharing schedule between the parents.

The former husband, Basem Yunis, ran afoul of these basic principles when dealing with an ex parte motion seeking emergency relief.  You can read about the facts in his case in Suleiman v. Yunis, 168 Southern 3rd 319 (Florida 5th DCA 2015).

To modify custody on a temporary basis, the party seeking relief has the burden of proving two things.  First, you must prove that a substantial change in the circumstances of one or both of the parties has occurred, and secondly, that the best interests of the child will be promoted by any changes in custody or timesharing.

When an ex parte order is entered by the court, which has the effect of changing custody or timesharing, such relief may be granted in only limited circumstances.   Generally, there must be allegations that the child is threatened with physical harm or is about to be improperly removed from the state of Florida.   Any pleading short of those allegations should mandate a full evidentiary hearing, with notice and opportunity to be heard by both sides, rather than the court granting ex parte relief.

Along similar lines, a court does not have the legal authority to change a previously existing time-sharing schedule based upon an alleged violation of shared parental responsibilities under Florida law.  If the court were to do such a thing, any change would be based upon a punishment against a parent rather than the court considering the best interests of the minor child.   A change in time sharing or custody should never be imposed based upon a sanction for the misconduct or bad behavior of either party, but must always be based upon the best interests of the minor child.

Family Law disputes regarding minor children are extremely sensitive proceedings, which require a steady hand and common sense approach to resolving conflicts. Boca Raton divorce attorney Alan R. Burton has the demeanor to approach high conflict cases with a steady hand, in order to achieve a more expeditious resolution.  Mr. Burton is an attorney who is readily accessible by telephone.  You can call him today directly on his cell phone at 954-295-9222 to discuss any issues regarding any of your family related matters

The Legislature has made adoption assistance, including financial aid, available to prospective adoptive parents who adopt a child with special needs through the state’s foster care system.

The purpose of the adoption subsidy is to encourage individuals to adopt special-needs children by assisting the parents with the extra care a special needs child requires.

A subsidy paid by the state is not to be treated as a credit towards a child support obligation.  However, the subsidy is to be divided between the parents based on the percentage of time sharing that each receives under their parenting plan. Tluzek v. Tluzek, 179 So3d 455 (Florida 5th District Court of Appeal 2015).

The trial court had committed error when the court initially credited the full amount of the adoption subsidy against the child support obligation.  This resulted in a negative child support obligation, and a corresponding payment back to the father from the mother, who was the primary caregiver for the child.  This result was obviously inconsistent with the legislative intent regarding adoption subsidies, and the trial court was promptly reversed.

Although the issue of adoption subsidies doesn’t arise very frequently, you should be able to call upon an attorney who is very familiar with adoption subsidies and other unique situations.  Only an experienced attorney, with several years of trial experience, should be called upon to address these unique situations.  Alan R Burton, an experienced divorce lawyer in Boca Raton, Florida, has over 40 years of experience, and has dealt with this issue as well as other complicated issues over his many years as a divorce and family law attorney.  Alan R Burton makes himself readily available, and will provide you with a free consultation, simply by calling him at (954) 229-1660 or 954-295-9222.

Before a court will grant your divorce, you and your spouse must settle numerous issues including:

• Property and debt division;
• Child support;
• Time-sharing and visitation;
• Parenting plans;
• Alimony.

If any one of those issues cannot be settled out of court, the divorce can be delayed as the court will have to decide for you. You and your spouse will have to present evidence to support your arguments for how you want to resolve the issue at trial and the judge will rule on the matter.

A recent divorce case demonstrates just how much a divorce case can be affected by adversarial disputes instead of cooperation. After 25 years of marriage, the wife of the founder of Cancer Treatment Centers for America filed for divorce. The filing occurred in 2009 and the case is still dragging on due to several disagreements regarding a prenuptial agreement, custody, and division of their millions of dollars in assets. The case has involved numerous hearings, appellate hearings, changes of lawyers, contempt orders, and other complications, and is now finally going to trial over asset and property division. In the meantime, both spouses have likely spent an enormous amount of money, stress, and time dealing with the divorce proceedings and have been unable to remarry since their marriage is not yet dissolved after more than six years.

Finding Ways to Come to a Resolution

It is unreasonable to expect every divorcing couple to agree on every issue. However, there are numerous ways to facilitate cooperation and agreement even if spouses do not initially agree. Some options for couples to resolve issues in a more efficient and amicable way include the following:

• Mediation;
• Collaborative divorce;
• Negotiation.

It is important to explore one or more of these options before you take your case to court for a more costly and time-consuming resolution. In addition, the above methods allow you to settle matters on your own terms because, when you go to court, the ruling is out of your hands.

Discuss Your Case With an Experienced Boca Raton Divorce Attorney Today

At the law office of divorce lawyer Alan R. Burton, we understand the importance of an efficient resolution in a divorce case so that you can move on with your life as soon as possible. However, we also know that agreement is not possible in every case. For this reason, we will help you explore every possible option to come to an agreement, however, are also prepared to represent you in court if it is necessary for a fair and favorable result for you. If you are considering divorce, please call us as soon as possible at 954-229-1660 for a free consultation.

Original Terms

Prior to 2008, one parent was often known as the “custodial parent” and the other as the “non-custodial parent.” Other terms used included “primary residential parent” and “secondary residential parent,” which meant the children lived with one parent most of the time and visited the other periodically. The timeline and frequency of such visits were set out in a “visitation plan.”

Though not always the case, the “custodial parent” was often the mother, while the father was granted visitation rights. These old terms perpetuated the traditional–and old-fashioned–view that it was in the best interest of the children to live primarily with the mother.

New Terms of the Statute

In 2008, Florida legislators addressed the somewhat antiquated statute to respect the fact that both mothers and fathers have equal parental rights and responsibilities. Additionally, the updated law seems to imply that the default view should be that equal parenting is in the best interest of the child, unless evidence is presented otherwise.

The term “visitation plan” is no longer used in Florida, as it was replaced by both “parenting plan” and “time-sharing schedule.” The emphasis is now not on a short visit with a father or non-custodial parent, but on the fact that both parents will share comparable time with their child. Additionally, instead of merely setting a schedule to shuttle children back and forth, parenting plans must take a much more in-depth look at how each parent will relate to the child and contribute to the care of the child.

In fact, under the law, a parenting plan must cover the following topics:

• How each parent will be responsible for and share in daily tasks relevant to the upbringing and care of the child;
• Which parent will be in charge of health care matters for the child;
• Which parent’s address will be used for school and education purposes;
• How the parents will decide education and school-related issues;
• The technology and methods that will be used for each parent to regularly communicate with their child; and
• The time-sharing schedule.

Furthermore, there may be greater flexibility when the provisions of a parenting or time-sharing plan are not exactly consistent with the parent’s or child’s needs. In old laws, a modification by the courts was required to make any changes to the custodial arrangement. The updated law recognizes that situations may change and requires each parent to “be reasonable” if the other parent requires a change in the parenting plan.

Alan R. Burton is an experienced family law attorney dedicated to helping families and couples in Boca Raton and Ft. Lauderdale. Mr. Burton understands the ever-evolving family laws in the state of Florida and can apply them to your case so you receive the best possible outcome. Contact his office today for help.

Incredible as it sounds, the Massachusetts legislature is considering such a bill. The proposal should not be considered in a vacuum however, as it applies only in specific situations, when minor children are involved.

The proposal was designed to promote and protect the best interests of the minor children, whose parents are in the midst of a divorce.

Robert LeClair, a local Massachusetts lawmaker proposed the bill, after going through a bitter divorce himself. The specifics of the bill would be to prohibit the parent in possession of the marital home, from engaging in any type of sexual relationship with a new partner during the parties separation, and prior to the divorce proceedings concluding.

The bill would would have to be passed by the state legislature, and then approved by the governor.

The language of the bill reads as follows:

“In divorce, separation, or 209A( restraining order)proceedings involving children and a marital home, the party remaining in the home shall not conduct a dating or sexual relationship within the home until a divorce is final and all financial and custody issues are resolved, unless the express permission is granted by the courts,”

The law, if passed, would raise some interesting questions about obtaining the necessary evidence to prove a violation of the law. Since children are generally not allowed to testify in court, absentee spouses will need to become quite creative in order to prove their case. This bill will most certainly keep the private detectives in Massachusetts quite busy.

Source: The Huffington Post, “Massachusetts Bill Could Ban Sex During Marriage“, Emily Thomas, March 24, 2014

An interesting situation arises when a minor child wishes to attend a private school in a out-of-state location. The obvious question becomes whether or not the attendance at this new school would be considered a relocation, thereby requiring the parent to comply with Florida Statute 61.13001.

The answer to that question was recently addressed in the case of Blakely v Blakely, 38 Florida Law Weekly D2170c. In that case the court deemed the attendance of the child at an out-of-state high school to be an educational decision for the child and not one of relocation, therefore the relocation statute in Florida was not applicable.

This analysis of the law was also set forth in the case of Young v Hector, 833 So2d 793, 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

Moving from the state of Florida with minor children without permission can have serious consequences. The rules for relocation from the state of Florida are found in Florida Statutes 61.13001.

If the “stay behind” parent consents to relocation, make sure that consent is given in writing. If consent is not given, relocation must be initiated by the parent seeking to relocate, by filing a petition in the Circuit Court that currently has jurisdiction over the parties.

The petition must include a substantial amount of information, including the complete address of the intended new residence; telephone numbers, the reason for the requested relocation, and if for employment purposes, should include a copy of the employment offer.

The petition must be served on the other parent, who is afforded a twenty day period to respond to the petition.

The case then follows a process similar to the initial divorce case. Both sides gather their “discovery” and prepare for trial. The trial judge will have to consider what is in the best interest of the children that are involved in the proceeding. This is not an enviable task for the judge, who obviously must make a very difficult decision.

Whether you are seeking to relocate, or are opposing a relocation case. you should be represented by an experienced and qualified attorney, one who frequently is involved with relocation cases. Boca Raton attorney Alan R. Burton has been extensively involved in relocation cases, and he can provide you with invaluable assistance in these types of cases.

Time haring with minor children in Florida is keeping up with technology. As a matter of fact, there is a specific statute in Florida that deals precisely with this issue.

Florida Statute 61.13003 is titled as “Court ordered electronic communication between a parent and a child.

This type of communication can be ordered by the court when the situation is appropriate. Some of the court ordered factors that are considered are whether it would be in the best interests of the child; whether or not the electronic equipment is readily available and affordable to the parties involved; and any history of drug use or domestic violence involved in the case.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, there is a rebuttable presumption that telephone communication is in the best interests of a minor child. None of this is , of course, designed to take the place of face to face time sharing and contact; it is designed to supplement the contact.

Frequently electronic communication issues arise in the context of relocation cases. Having years of experience in trying many cases in Boca Raton, Fort Lauderdale, and Broward, and Palm Beach County, Florida, you can rest assured that you will have a competent lawyer to represent your interests.