Suni L. Reed, n/k/a Suni L. Meyers v. Christopher J. Reed
182 So. 3d 837
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Parties divorced in 2008; final judgment incorporated a mediation agreement designating Mother as primary residential parent and setting Father’s weekday and Saturday visitation. The mediation schedule was temporary only until the final judgment, and no modifications were made before finalization.
- Five years later Father filed a supplemental petition to modify time-sharing (seeking 50/50 custody and overnight time-sharing) and to reduce child support, alleging increased stability and that Mother was restricting his access.
- At the magistrate hearing, Father admitted long periods of nonexercise of visitation; Mother and her relatives testified Father’s contact was sporadic and that the child was fearful of Father. Father’s mother testified Father recently tried to engage more and had difficulties with scheduled visits.
- The magistrate found a substantial change in circumstances (characterizing the original schedule as temporary and noting Father’s stabilization), recommended increased overnight time-sharing and reduced child support, and adopted a standard circuit time-sharing schedule if parties could not agree.
- The trial court adopted the magistrate’s report. Mother appealed, arguing the settlement schedule was final and the court lacked evidence of a substantial, unanticipated change or any best-interests analysis supporting modification.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the time-sharing schedule in the final judgment remained temporary such that modification was justified | The mediation schedule became final when incorporated in the judgment; it was not temporary after the final judgment | The schedule had been temporary until final hearing and circumstances have since changed | Reversed: the schedule became final with the judgment; trial court erred treating it as still temporary |
| Whether Father demonstrated a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances to permit modification | Mother argued Father’s claimed stabilization and desire for more time did not amount to the required substantial change | Father argued his life had stabilized and he sought more involvement (and alleged Mother restricted access) | Reversed: Father’s stabilization alone was insufficient and evidence did not meet the extraordinary burden for modification |
| Whether the court made the required best-interests determination supported by evidence | Mother argued no statutory best-interest analysis or supporting evidence was made | Father contended increased father contact was in the child’s best interests | Reversed: trial court failed to analyze statutory best-interest factors and record lacked evidence favoring increased time-sharing |
| Whether modification should be denied and remanded for entry of appropriate order | Mother sought denial of modification and reinstatement of original schedule | Father sought modification to overnight and 50/50 time-sharing | Court remanded with directions to deny Father’s modification motion and preserve the original time-sharing outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2005) (sets three-part test and high burden to modify custody/time-sharing)
- Sanchez v. Hernandez, 45 So. 3d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (stability and finality of custody decrees; presumption favoring original decree)
- Chamberlain v. Eisinger, 159 So. 3d 185 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (characterizes the extraordinary burden on movant and balancing of child’s best interests)
- Pedersen v. Pedersen, 752 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (modification may be warranted when significant changes affect child’s well-being over time)
- Bartolotta v. Bartolotta, 687 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (parental stabilization alone does not establish a substantial change)
- Miller v. Miller, 671 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (similar authority that improved parental circumstances alone are insufficient for modification)