Rachel D. Dukes, f/k/a Rachel D. Griffin, Former Wife v. Timothy R. Griffin, Former Husband
230 So. 3d 155
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Parties divorced in 2010 and adopted a parenting plan giving primary residence to Rachel Dukes and alternate weekends/holidays/summer time-sharing to Timothy Griffin.
- Repeated disputes followed, including contempt findings and court admonitions to Dukes about time-sharing noncompliance.
- In March 2016 Griffin petitioned to permanently obtain majority time-sharing and primary residence after continued conflicts.
- The trial court found a substantial, material, unanticipated, and permanent change in circumstances and that the child’s best interests favored awarding Griffin primary residence and majority time-sharing while retaining shared parental responsibility.
- Dukes’ time-sharing was reduced to weekends, holidays, and summers; she moved for rehearing and appealed, arguing the final judgment should have listed specific steps to regain majority time-sharing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a final judgment modifying time-sharing must include court-specified steps for a parent to regain majority time-sharing | Dukes: trial court must state specific steps/requirements to restore time-sharing (relying on some district-court precedents) | Griffin: no statutory basis; modification procedures are governed by § 61.13(3) and Dukes can seek a new modification under that statute | Court: No. Trial court not required to set out judicially created steps; affirmed modification and certified conflict with contrary DCA decisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Jannotta v. Hess, 959 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (standard of review for modification of custody/time-sharing)
- Perez v. Fay, 160 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (required trial courts to specify steps to restore time-sharing)
- Witt-Bahls v. Bahls, 193 So. 3d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (same principle requiring court-specified restoration steps)
- Davis v. Davis-Lopez, 162 So. 3d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (DCA authority aligning with the view that courts should set restoration criteria)
- Grigsby v. Grigsby, 39 So. 3d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (another decision discussing restoration steps and modification practice)