RACQUEL SCHOT v. KEVIN SCHOT
273 So. 3d 48
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Parties divorced in 2015; final judgment incorporated a marital settlement agreement and parenting plan.
- Husband moved to modify the parenting plan seeking equal timesharing and ultimate decision-making for healthcare and education.
- Husband alleged a material change: youngest child diagnosed with "failure to thrive," disagreements over school choice, and hostile conduct by wife at timesharing exchanges.
- Evidence included pediatrician diagnosis, wife’s failure to notify husband of feeding instructions, numerous doctor visits initiated by wife, and post-exchange symptoms (explosive diarrhea) that stopped after modification petition filed.
- Trial court found a material, unanticipated change and awarded equal timesharing plus ultimate decision-making for healthcare and education, but also made additional, unpled modifications to the parenting plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Schot) | Defendant's Argument (Schot) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a material, unanticipated change warranted modification of timesharing | Failure to thrive diagnosis, school disputes, and exchange behavior justify equal timesharing | Wife contended mere acrimony/communication failure insufficient | Court affirmed equal timesharing (sufficient change shown) |
| Whether ultimate decision-making for healthcare should be modified | Husband: medical concerns and wife's conduct warranted sole/ultimate healthcare authority | Wife: disputes and conduct alone insufficient | Court affirmed modification granting husband ultimate healthcare decision-making |
| Whether ultimate decision-making for education should be modified | Husband: repeated unilateral school actions and inability to agree support change | Wife: contested but did not overcome burden to show no material change | Court affirmed modification granting husband ultimate education decision-making |
| Whether trial court may order unpled/unproven changes to parenting plan | Husband did not request additional changes beyond timesharing/decision-making | Wife argued due process violated by awarding unpled relief | Court reversed all modifications/deletions/additions that were neither pled nor proven (due process error) |
Key Cases Cited
- Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2005) (standard of review for parenting plan modification)
- Sanchez v. Hernandez, 45 So. 3d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (burden to prove substantial, material, unanticipated change)
- Kasdorf v. Kasdorf, 931 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (awarding ultimate medical decision-making where one parent unnecessarily took children to doctors)
- Watt v. Watt, 966 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (education decision-making modification supported by parental disagreement)
- Bazan v. Gambone, 924 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (clarifying that acrimony alone is insufficient for modification)
- Korkmaz v. Korkmaz, 200 So. 3d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (affirming limits on modification absent substantial change)
- McDonald v. McDonald, 732 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (trial court errs by awarding relief not sought by pleadings)
- Wallace v. Wallace, 605 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (due process violation when relief awarded without being requested or proven)
Affirmed in part (timesharing, healthcare and education decision-making); reversed in part (unpled/unproven modifications) and remanded.