If you are seeking a court order to modify time-sharing or custody determination provisions set forth in your mediated settlement agreement, you must prove to the court either that (1) there are facts concerning the welfare of the child that the court did not know at the time that it entered its original order or (2) that there has been a substantial change in circumstances. If you are relying on the second test, you must not only show that the circumstances substantially and materially changed since the original order but also that the requested change in time sharing or custody determination is in the best interests of the child. Your burden of proof is to provide competent substantial evidence in support of your position.

In a recent case decided by the Third District Court of Appeal (3rd DCA), the husband and wife had entered into a mediated agreement whereby the parties agreed to have shared parental responsibility of their minor children and the mother’s residence was designated as the primary residence for the children. About five years after the court entered its final judgment adopting the mediated agreement, the father sought to change the final judgment, particularly the provisions relating to time-sharing and primary residence of the minor children. The father’s arguments for substantial change in circumstances were “parental alienation” by the mother. The crux of the father’s argument was that the older child, as allowed by the mother, had such control over the younger siblings that it detrimentally interfered with the father’s relationship with the younger children.

Relying on the testimony of a clinical psychologist, the trial court held that the father’s allegations of “parental alienation” were “confirmed by [the psychologist].” Due to this, the trial court ordered that the younger children immediately be transferred to the father’s residence and awarded sole parental responsibility of the younger children to the father. The 3rd DCA did not find this ruling to be supported by competent substantial evidence. Upon its own review of the psychologist’s testimony, the 3rd DCA found that that although the older child made every attempt to impair the younger siblings’ relationship with their father, the mother would in fact encourage a relationship between the children and the father. Additionally, the 3rd DCA did not find that the immediate transition of the younger children’s residence from the mother to the father, as ordered by the trial court, was in the best interests of the minor children.

Therefore, it is important to keep in mind that if you are seeking a post-judgment modification of a time-sharing or custody provision in a mediated agreement, you must not only prove a substantial change in circumstances, but also that the requested relief is in the best interest of the child(ren).

For more information, see Sueiro v. Gallardo, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D63 (Fla. 3rd DCA, 2012).

Liridona Sinani is an Attorney with Martin Law Firm, P.L., whose practice focuses primarily in Family Law. She is admitted to practice law in the State of Florida. She primarily practices in Lee County Florida in Cape Coral and Fort Myers, Florida.

With the new year come new Family Law Rules of Procedure. In a recent Florida Supreme Court opinion, Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.740(f), which provided for a ten day review period for counsel who was not present when a mediation agreement is reached, was deleted. The rule previously stated that if counsel of record for any party was not present at mediation when an agreement was reached, such counsel has ten days from the service of the copy of the agreement to serve written objections on the mediator, unrepresented parties, and counsel. However, beginning January 1st, 2013, this provision is no longer available.

What exactly does this mean and how does it impact you? Admittedly, mediation can be a costly event. As such, parties under dire financial circumstances may choose to forgo having representation at mediation and instead opt for their attorney to review the agreement and file any objections later. With this new opinion, parties no longer have that 10 day safety net provided by Rule12.740(f). What this means is that in order to ensure that are fully advised of your rights prior to reaching any binding agreements it is best to have counsel present at mediation. However, if your financial circumstances forbid you from doing so, then make sure to incorporate a provision in your mediation agreement allowing for attorney review before you sign the agreement.

For more information, see Supreme Court of Florida Case No. SC11-1454.

Liridona Sinani is an Attorney with Martin Law Firm, P.L., whose practice focuses primarily in Family Law.  She is admitted to practice law in the State of Florida. She primarily practices in Lee County, Florida in Cape Coral and Fort Myers, Florida.

What is formerly known as “custody” is currently referred to as “time sharing” in Florida Statutes. When parties in a dissolution of marriage case have a minor child in common, there is a need to establish parental responsibility for the minor child. The parties will strive to agree on a parenting plan, including a a time-sharing schedule, which governs each parent’s relationship with his or her minor child.

For purposes of establishing parental responsibility and creating, developing, or approving a parenting plan, the court must decide all such matters in accordance with the best interests of the child. However, it is important to note that any modification to a determination of parental responsibility, a parenting plan, or a time-sharing schedule may not be modified without a showing of a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances in addition to a determination that the modification is in the best interests of the child.

What may seem as an emergency to you that warrants a modification of an existing time-sharing schedule may not persuade the judge if he or she does not consider it a substantial change in circumstances. For example, in a recent opinion by the First District Court of Appeals, the former husband and wife had time-sharing of their minor child, when the former husband sought to modify it on an emergency basis because his cancer was no longer in remission and his health was deteriorating. The trial court granted the former husband’s motion and modified, on a temporary basis, the final order establishing time-sharing, notwithstanding the fact that the basis supporting the modification was not unanticipated and the court had taken into consideration the former husband’s health when it first issued the final order.

The 1^st DCA overruled the trial court’s decision on this point, holding:

“in order to obtain a temporary modification of custody, the moving party must establish (1) that there has been a substantial change in the condition of one or both parties, and (2) that the change in custody serves the best interests of the child … Furthermore, the substantial change must be one that was not reasonably contemplated at the time of the original judgment.”

Here, because the trial court acknowledged that it had taken the former husband’s health into consideration when it issued the final order, it was without power to grant a modification of such order.

Dissolution of marriage can be an emotional process, especially when children are involved. You want to ensure that you secure the best possible outcome for you and your children. That is why it is important to seek the advice of counsel from the inception of your dissolution of marriage case. If you currently have time-sharing of your minor child or children and are experiencing a change in circumstances that you feel warrants a modification of your existing order, make sure you speak to an attorney so that you are adequately prepared to meet your burden of proof to get a modification granted.

See Langdon v. Langdon, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D2061 (Fla. 1^st DCA 2012).

Liridona Sinani is an Attorney with Martin Law Firm, P.L., whose practice focuses primarily in Family Law.  She is admitted to practice law in the State of Florida. She primarily practices in Lee County Florida in Cape Coral and Fort Myers, Florida.

Florida Statute 61.14(1)(b), sometimes referred to as “the cohabitation statute,” states that b(1)
[t]he court may reduce or terminate an award of alimony upon specific written findings by the court that since the granting of a divorce and the award of alimony a supportive relationship has existed between the obligee and a person with whom the obligee resides. On the issue of whether alimony should be reduced or terminated under this paragraph, the burden is on the obligor to prove by a preponderence of the evidence that a supportive relationship exists. (2) In determining whether an existing award of alimony should be reduced or terminated because of an alleged supportive relationship between an obligee and a person who is not related by consanguinity or affinity and with whom the obligee resides, the court shall elicit the nature and extent of the relationship in question….

The Second District Court of Appeals recently explained that to determine whether a supportive relationship exists, the circuit court must employ an analysis of four steps: First, the circuit court must elicit the nature and extent of the relationship in question. Second, the court must determine whether the facts establish a supportive relationship. Third, if a supportive relationship is found to exist, the court must consider the relevant economic factors for determining an award of separate maintenance or alimony outlined in section 61.08(2). Fourth, after evaluating all relevant economic factors, the court must must decide whether to reduce or terminate the alimony obligation.

If a payor is able to prove that the recipient of alimony is in a supportive relationship, the court may reduce or terminate any alimony order currently in place. These are important factors to consider when deciding whether to attempt to modify any previous alimony orders in your case.
See King v. King, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D552.

Patricia Dills is an Attorney with Martin Law Firm, P.L., whose practice
focuses in Divorce, Child Support, Family Law, and Civil Litigation. She
primarily practices in Naples, Collier County, and Fort Myers, Lee County Florida.

Question: I was ordered by the court to pay child support. Now I’ve lost my job and I am making literally no money while still paying the same amount of child support. I can barely afford to pay for my rent. Can I change the amount of child support that I am required to pay?

Answer: An existing child support order may be modified by different parties. A person who has been ordered to pay or receive child support may ask the court to modify that order. An adult child may ask the court to enforce past due child support that accrued during the child’s minority. Also the Department of Revenue is authorized to assist in the enforcement and modification of the child support order. Under Florida law, child support may be modified when:

• it is found by the court to be in the best interest of the child;
• the child reaches majority; or
• there is a substantial change in the circumstances of the parties.

To meet the substantial change in circumstances standard, the change needs to be unanticipated, significant, material, involuntary, and permanent in nature. The original child support obligation is calculated according to the child support guidelines provided for in the Florida Statutes. The child support guidelines may provide a reason for modification if the difference between the existing monthly obligation and the amount provided for under the guidelines is at least 15% or $50, whichever is greater.

A substantial increase or decrease in one’s ability to make the child support payments could be a justification for modification. If an increase in payments is sought, the court will need to find if the payor has the ability to pay more. Then, even if the parent’s income did increase, there needs to be an increase in the child’s needs. If the child’s needs are met by the previously established child support order, it might be difficult to argue that more money is needed.

If a decrease in child support is sought, a substantial change in the payor’s ability to pay must be shown. It is not enough to show that the parent lost his job, but the parent needs to show that he tried and was not able to find equally gainful employment. The original child support amount may be ordered to continue if the parent voluntarily refuses to work or to accept employment at the same pay rate.