Germania Paola Naranjo Saenz v. Jose Antonio Diaz

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: June 25, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-1744
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed June 25, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1744 Lower Tribunal No. 16-7158-FC-04 ________________

Germania Paola Naranjo Saenz, Appellant,

vs.

Jose Antonio Diaz, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marlene Fernandez-Karavetsos, Judge.

Germania Paola Naranjo Saenz, in proper person.

The Quattro Firm and Nicole M. Quattrocchi (West Palm Beach), for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.

GORDO, J. Germania Paola Naranjo Saenz (“Mother”) appeals a final judgment

modifying parental responsibility and timesharing in favor of Jose Antonio

Diaz (“Father”). We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We

affirm.

I.

In November 2016, the Father and Mother divorced and entered into a

settlement agreement providing for shared parental responsibility and equal

timesharing of their one minor child. In its final judgment of dissolution, the

trial court ratified the settlement agreement and ordered compliance with all

of its provisions. The court did not set forth a specific timesharing schedule

and reserved jurisdiction over matters concerning the child’s best interests.

The parties continued to reside together with the child. In May 2023,

the Father filed a petition to modify shared parental responsibility, alleging a

substantial change in circumstances. He requested the court issue a specific

timesharing schedule, asserting he had moved out, the Mother had refused

to allow equal timesharing and was excluding him from major decisions

concerning the child. He further asserted the child was undergoing treatment

for a learning disability and required a stable timesharing arrangement to

prevent further disruption.

2 The trial court referred the matter to a general magistrate for an

evidentiary hearing. After hearing, the general magistrate entered a

recommended order with a specific timesharing schedule for both the Mother

and Father. The Mother filed objections to the magistrate’s recommended

order. The trial court entered a final judgment ratifying and approving the

recommended order. This appeal followed.

II.

“A trial court’s order on timesharing is typically reviewed for an abuse

of discretion.” Perez v. Maldonato, 324 So. 3d 1011, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA

2021).

III.

On appeal, the Mother filed a brief titled “story of my life” but did not

challenge the magistrate’s recommended order or the trial court’s ratification

and approval thereof.

Following the evidentiary hearing, the general magistrate entered a

recommended order finding a substantial change in circumstances had

occurred and shared parental responsibility with equal timesharing remained

in the child’s best interests. This hearing was electronically recorded and no

transcript was prepared. The Mother did not provide the recording in the

appellate record. Without a record of the hearing and finding no legal error

3 apparent on the face of the recommended order, we cannot conclude the

trial court abused its discretion in its modification of the timesharing

schedule. Because such a determination is clothed with presumption of

correctness, we are compelled to affirm. See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (“A

determination of parental responsibility, a parenting plan, or a time-sharing

schedule may not be modified without a showing of a substantial and

material change in circumstances and a determination that the modification

is in the best interests of the child.”); Pedersen v. Pedersen, 752 So. 2d 89,

91 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (“The requirement to demonstrate a substantial

change in circumstances . . . is to preclude parties to a dissolution from

continually disrupting the lives of children by initiating repeated custody

disputes. This burden, however, should not preclude legitimate review in the

best interests of the child where there have been significant changes

affecting the well being of the child, especially when the change of

circumstances has occurred over a substantial period of time.”); Applegate

v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“In

appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of

correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error . . .

Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly

resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s

4 judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.

Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court

reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to

require reversal.”); John Moriarty & Assocs. of Fla., Inc. v. Thyssenkrupp

Elevator Corp., 272 So. 3d 464, 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“In the absence of

a transcript of the lower court proceedings, and finding no legal error

apparent on the face of the order . . . we cannot conclude the trial court erred

in rendering the order under review and therefore affirm.”).

Affirmed.