Milton v. Milton
113 So. 3d 1040
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Stephen Milton appeals a trial court order that did not hold Julianna Milton in contempt or order the child’s return, and allowed relocation to New York.
- The trial court did not compel makeup time or hold contempt for Mrs. Milton’s time-sharing noncompliance; the court’s decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Milton argues dissolution of the 2008 temporary injunction required a new best-interests determination and new time-sharing arrangement, with proper notice.
- Mrs. Milton relocated the child to New York without a petition or service as required by § 61.13001, which the majority finds improper and reversible; the relocation hearing was not adequately structured for best-interests review.
- On remand, the court should take evidence on the child’s best interests and determine appropriate relief, including makeup time and any remedies for unauthorized relocation, prior to creating a final time-sharing arrangement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contempt or makeup-time for time-sharing | Milton: contempt and makeup time warranted | Milton: no contempt required; court acted within discretion | No abuse of discretion; contempt not mandatory |
| Effect of dissolving the injunction on custody | Milton: court erred by modifying under notice without proper framework | Milton invited dissolution; court to create new arrangement | Court must conduct best-interests hearing to fashion new time-sharing on remand |
| Compliance with relocation statute | Milton: relocation violated § 61.13001 due to lack of petition/service | Milton: relocation permissible pending final determination | Relocation improperly permitted; remand for best-interests consideration and proper relief |
| Remand proceedings and best-interests standard | Milton: remand should address makeup time and statutory factors | Court to determine appropriate relief in light of best interests | Remand to take evidence on best interests; fashion relief including makeup time as appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Nunes v. Nunes, 112 So.3d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (abuse-of-discretion review for contempt decisions)
- Cummings v. Cummings, 723 So.2d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (makeup-time orders do not require contempt)
- Delivorias v. Delivorias, 80 So.3d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (best-interests inquiry required before custody makeup)
- Cheek v. Hesik, 73 So.3d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (no competent evidence of best interests to support drastic makeup plan)
- Raulerson v. Wright, 60 So.3d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (unambiguous relocation requirements; proper petition/service necessary)
- Rivero v. Rivero, 111 So.3d 233 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (statutory relocation requirements must be followed)
- Raulerson v. Wright, 60 So.3d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (see Raulerson above (listed for emphasis))
- Conners v. Mullins, 27 So.3d 199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (best-interests factors govern relocation remand)