Ledoux-Nottingham v. Downs
163 So. 3d 560
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Mother moved from Colorado to Florida with her two minor children after her ex-husband’s death; paternal grandparents (Grandparents) obtained a Colorado court order granting them visitation.
- Mother filed in Florida to domesticate/modify the Colorado judgment and to seek a declaration that grandparent visitation violated her constitutional child-rearing privacy rights; she also requested termination of Grandparents’ visitation.
- Colorado had entered a final order awarding Grandparents three weeks of visitation and reasonable telephone contact; Mother amended her Florida petition after that order.
- The Florida trial court registered and enforced the Colorado judgment under the Full Faith and Credit framework and denied Mother’s request to modify/terminate visitation; it reserved ruling on Grandparents’ make-up visitation and denied attorney’s fees for Grandparents without detailed findings.
- Mother appealed only the enforceability/modification ruling (arguing Florida public policy/parental privacy), and Grandparents cross-appealed denial of make-up visitation and attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of out-of-state grandparent visitation order | LeDoux-Nottingham: Colorado order violates Florida parental privacy/public policy and is unenforceable | Grandparents: Colorado final judgment must be recognized and enforced under Full Faith and Credit and Florida statutes | Court: Enforceable; Full Faith and Credit and §61.526 require recognition of the Colorado custody/visitation judgment |
| Right to modify/terminate visitation in Florida after out-of-state order | Mother: Substantial change in circumstances (child more stable; differing parenting/religion) justifies termination | Grandparents: No substantial change; Colorado order remains controlling unless Florida shows material change | Court: Denial affirmed — Mother failed to meet the heavy burden to show a substantial and material change occurring after the Colorado order |
| Whether Florida public-policy/privacy can defeat Full Faith and Credit | Mother: Florida constitutional privacy in child-rearing supersedes recognition | Grandparents: Public policy does not create a "roving exception" to Full Faith and Credit | Court: Public policy does not override Full Faith and Credit; previously decided analogous cases control |
| Make-up visitation and attorney’s fees (cross-appeal) | Grandparents: Entitled to make-up visitation and fees under §61.535 | Mother: Trial court discretion; no contempt found and fees may be inappropriate | Court: Make-up visitation issue not ripe — trial court reserved jurisdiction and must address it on remand; attorney’s-fee request remanded for findings on whether fees would be "clearly inappropriate" |
Key Cases Cited
- Bellow v. Bellow, 736 So.2d 759 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (Florida appellate decision enforcing sister-state visitation judgment under Full Faith and Credit; rejects forum public-policy exception)
- Shingel v. Peters, 867 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (affirmed enforcement of out-of-state grandparent visitation and declined to recede from Bellow)
- Baker by Thomas v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222 (1998) (U.S. Supreme Court: no broad public-policy exception to Full Faith and Credit for judgments of other states)
- Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So.2d 928 (Fla. 2005) (explains the high burden for modifying a time-sharing order: substantial and material change and best interests of the child must be promoted)
- Von Eiff v. Azicri, 720 So.2d 510 (Fla. 1998) (recognizes parental privacy and autonomy in child-rearing under Florida Constitution)