Doyle v. Owens
This text of 936 So. 2d 1173 (Doyle v. Owens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
Appellant and Appellee are the unmarried parents of a six year old child. Appellant was awarded sole parental responsibility. Subsequently, Appellee sought to have the child’s surname changed to his own, and to alter the backup care provisions. The trial court entered an order granting both motions. Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in both of its rulings. We affirm.
On appeal, it is Appellant’s burden to show the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the name change and modifying the backup care provisions. Collinsworth v. O'Connell, 508 So.2d 744, 747 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Hastings v. Rigsbee, 875 So.2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
Here, the record reflects the trial court considered factors in addition to paternity when ordering the name change. Because reasonable people could differ under the circumstances present here, the trial court cannot be said to have abused its discretion. We affirm the alteration of the backup care provisions without discussion. The trial court’s order is AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
936 So. 2d 1173, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14285, 2006 WL 2433275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doyle-v-owens-fladistctapp-2006.