Can a Florida Court Anticipate Future Events When Making Child Custody Decisions?

When Florida courts decide disputed cases involving child custody–or what state law refers to as “timesharing” between parents–a judge must consider a list of factors aimed at determining what will be in the best interest of the child. In doing so, judges are not supposed to consider potential or “anticipated” events. That is, the court must look at the evidence available at the time and not speculate as to how things might play out in the future.

Appeals Court Reverses Custody’s Decision Based on “Speculative Findings”

As the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal observed in a recent child custody decision, Giacomaro v. Brossia, “no trial judge has a crystal ball to see into the future.” Indeed, in this particular case, the appellate court reversed a trial judge’s decision approving the relocation of a minor child from Florida to live with his father in Michigan. The reason for this reversal was that the trial court engaged in unsupported speculation about the father’s ability to act as a responsible single parent.

The child in this case was born in 2017 to unmarried parents. The mother relocated with the child to Florida. In 2021, the father initiated proceedings in Florida to establish paternity. This came after the mother sought a domestic violence protection order against the father for alleged abuse.

Contested litigation followed between the parties. In 2023, a Florida judge held a trial on the issue of timesharing. The trial judge chose to ignore most of the mother’s evidence regarding the father’s alleged domestic violence. Instead, the judge decided it would be in the child’s best interest to live with the father in Michigan during the school year.

On appeal, the Fourth District found a number of flaws in the trial court’s analysis. First and foremost, the judge asked “leading questions” of a key witness that seemed designed to help the father’s case. These questions asked a court-appointed guardian ad litem to respond to certain “hypothetical” scenarios involving the father.

The trial judge also “made speculative findings” unsupported by any testimony. For example, the judge assumed the father would be able to rely on friends and family to transport the child while his driver’s license was under suspension for prior DUI violations. The father never presented any testimony on this issue, however, and when asked when he could expect to get his driver’s license back, he could only reply, “soon.”

Given this reliance on speculation and conjecture, the Fourth District said the trial court’s ruling could not stand. It returned the case for a new hearing on child custody. The father would be allowed, however, to present evidence of any changes in his situation since the original hearing in support of his case.

Contact a Tampa Child Custody Attorney Today

Disputes over child custody and child relocation are often fraught with emotions on all sides. That is why it is important to work with a qualified Tampa child custody attorney who can provide professional guidance and representation. Contact Florida Law Advisers, P.A., today to schedule a free consultation.

Source:

4dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2442079/opinion/Opinion_2024-0824.pdf