Zarudny v. Zarudny
241 So. 3d 258
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Husband and wife married ~7 years; incidents at end of Dec 2016–Jan 1, 2017 prompted wife to file for domestic violence injunction on Jan 5, 2017.
- Wife alleged husband drank heavily, abused marijuana, refused medication, disabled locks, shoved her, ripped sheets off the bed, and played with their toddler while intoxicated; she fled with the child overnight and later returned.
- Wife recorded cellphone videos of the husband screaming/threatening and testified to prior incidents and fearing for her and the child’s safety; police were called previously.
- Temporary injunction entered; contested final hearing held Feb 16, 2017 where court viewed videos and heard testimony and observed witness demeanor.
- Trial court found wife credible, concluded she had reasonable fear of imminent domestic violence, issued a one-year final injunction and ordered batterer’s intervention, anger management, and alcohol evaluation.
- Court incorporated Case Manager recommendation: wife granted 100% temporary time-sharing; husband allowed one scheduled supervised visit per week; husband appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether competent, substantial evidence supported a final domestic-violence injunction | Wife: testimony, videos, history, and the child’s exposure show reasonable fear and imminent danger | Husband: incidents were minor, disputed physical contact, and evidence insufficient for injunction | Affirmed — trial court’s factual findings supported by competent, substantial evidence; injunction proper |
| Whether trial court erred by awarding temporary sole time-sharing to wife without explicit §61.13 factor-by-factor findings | Wife: child’s safety warranted temporary sole time-sharing given violence in child’s presence and other factors considered at hearing | Husband: court failed to analyze §61.13(3)(a)-(t) best-interest factors before limiting visitation to supervised only | Affirmed — court considered child’s best interests at hearing, weighed history, exposure of child to abuse, mental health and safety; temporary arrangement appropriate and reversible in Family Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Achurra v. Achurra, 80 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (standard of appellate review for injunctions)
- Leal v. Rodriguez, 220 So. 3d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (domestic-violence injunction requires showing of violence or threat of violence)
- Randolph v. Rich, 58 So. 3d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (petitioner must show objectively reasonable apprehension of imminent danger)
- Decker v. Lyle, 848 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (§61.13 applies to custody disputes; temporary orders need not recite each factor but must reflect child's best interests)
- Spano v. B.B., 947 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (better practice: enter Chapter 741 temporary order and direct custody to family court when custody/visitation implicated)