In general, Florida courts consider a child’s current best interests and the family’s present circumstances when ordering a parenting plan in a dissolution of marriage or paternity action. Prospective-based analyses of children’s future best interests are to be avoided. There is a recent trend, however, in allowing for timesharing planning and adjustments around future events if an event is “reasonably and objectively certain to occur at an identifiable time in the future,” i.e., when the use of a crystal ball is not needed.
This exception to the general rule is important, because, without it, a parent would have to resort to further litigation in the future by way of a modification action when the event that is sure to happen does indeed happen. Attempts at modifications of parenting plans can not only be costly, but they can also be challenging and uncertain as courts have described the burden in modification actions as “extraordinary.”
In Rivera v. Purtell, 252 So.3d 283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting the mother’s motion for rehearing and new trial and instructed the trial court to reinstate the Final Judgment. The parents in this case lived about 50 miles from each other and the Final Judgment ordered equal timesharing for the parents until the child started kindergarten, at which time the father would have majority timesharing and his address would be used for school designation purposes. The mother moved for rehearing and a new trial, arguing the trial court improperly made a prospective determination as to timesharing. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court granted the mother’s motion for a new trial, reasoning the court has no crystal ball to allow it to make determinations as to the child’s best interest when she is school-aged. In instructing the trial court to reinstate the Final Judgment, however, the Fifth DCA opined there was nothing speculative about the child starting kindergarten. The Fifth DCA distinguished between a court improperly predicting a change in the child’s best interest at some future date or event from a court properly applying the child’s best interest at the time of the final hearing to an event that is reasonably and objectively certain to occur at an identifiable time in the future. In the later scenario, the court is determining the child’s best interest at the time of the final hearing based on the facts presented, sans the crystal ball.
Are you in need of a parenting plan that takes into account events that are reasonably and objectively certain to occur at an identifiable time in your family’s future? Do you seek a thoughtful and customized parenting plan based on your family’s unique needs and circumstances? Call Rice Law Firm and schedule a consultation with one of our experienced Family Law attorneys.
