Brooks v. Brooks
164 So. 3d 162
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Parents divorced in 2011 with a time-sharing plan providing shared parental responsibility; children lived with Mother during weekdays and Father every other weekend.
- The plan required 30 days' advance notice and an itinerary for out-of-state travel with the children.
- Mother took two out-of-state trips and failed to provide timely notice/itinerary for one trip; Father moved to hold Mother in contempt.
- Father moved from Sarasota to Hallandale Beach without filing a petition to relocate under § 61.13001; Mother moved to hold Father in contempt for failing to file.
- Trial court denied both contempt motions but ordered Father to file a petition to relocate; Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying Father's contempt motion for Mother’s travel without notice | Father: Mother uncontrovertibly violated time-sharing; contempt appropriate | Mother: Court has discretion; sanctions unnecessary given parties' acrimonious litigation history | Court: Affirmed denial; contempt is discretionary and court properly declined to punish to avoid fueling vindictive litigation |
| Whether noncustodial parent must file petition to relocate after moving residences | Father: Only a “primary residential parent” must file; he is noncustodial | Mother/Trial Court: § 61.13001 applies to any parent entitled to time-sharing or access | Court: Affirmed trial court; statute’s text covers any parent with time-sharing/access, so Father must file |
| Whether ordering Father to file petition to relocate was an abuse of discretion | Father: Order improper because he's not primary residential parent | Trial Court: Statute’s text controls; order appropriate to enforce statutory process | Court: No abuse of discretion; statutory scheme focuses on time-sharing parents, not only primary residential parent |
| Whether Father should be held in contempt for failing to file before moving | Father: Did not need to file; move did not change child’s residence | Mother: Violation of § 61.13001 could warrant contempt | Court: Denied contempt now because move did not change child’s residence; warned contempt possible if he fails to comply with order to file |
Key Cases Cited
- Rojo v. Rojo, 84 So. 3d 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (standard of review for contempt is abuse of discretion)
- Milton v. Milton, 113 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (trial court not required to hold contempt despite factual violation)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (trial court’s exercise of discretion and standards for abuse)
- State v. Webb, 398 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1981) (statutory title considered with text to determine legislative intent)
- Fla. Dep't of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc., 554 U.S. 33 (2008) (section headings are interpretive tools but cannot override statutory text)
- Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Balt. & Ohio R.R. Co., 331 U.S. 519 (1947) (titles and headings do not limit plain statutory text)
- Raulerson v. Wright, 60 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (contrasting interpretation that § 61.13001 applies only to primary residential parent)
- Bautista v. State, 863 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 2003) (court must give effect to clear legislative intent)