Hamilton v. Lemon

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hamilton v. Lemon

82 So. 3d 1215, 2012 WL 966600, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4573

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 23, 2012

Docket5D11-1390

StatusPublished

This text of 82 So. 3d 1215 (Hamilton v. Lemon) 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.

Bluebook

Hamilton v. Lemon, 82 So. 3d 1215, 2012 WL 966600, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4573 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

COHEN, J.

Christina Hamilton appeals a final judgment of paternity. The record is sparse; no transcript was provided. In her “brief,” Ms. Hamilton appears to complain about the trial court’s decision to allow the natural father visitation with the parties’ child, although it is possible Ms. Hamilton also disputes the determination of paternity. The record reflects a DNA test, which Ms. Hamilton refers to as a “Walgreens [sic] bought paternity test.” There is no answer to the original petition and, other than the previously quoted comment, no clear indication in her brief that paternity is still in dispute. Ms. Hamilton certainly disputes the decision of the trial court allowing the natural father visitation. However, issues relating to shared parenting and visitation are naturally fact-intensive and, without the benefit of a transcript, are not subject to appellate review absent some defect on the face of the final judgment. Van Epps v. Hartzell, 934 So.2d 590, 592 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, C.J., and MONACO, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

COHEN, J.

Christina Hamilton appeals a final judgment of paternity. The record is sparse; no transcript was provided. In her “brief,” Ms. Hamilton appears to complain about the trial court’s decision to allow the natural father visitation with the parties’ child, although it is possible Ms. Hamilton also disputes the determination of paternity. The record reflects a DNA test, which Ms. Hamilton refers to as a “Walgreens [sic] bought paternity test.” There is no answer to the original petition and, other than the previously quoted comment, no clear indication in her brief that paternity is still in dispute. Ms. Hamilton certainly disputes the decision of the trial court allowing the natural father visitation. However, issues relating to shared parenting and visitation are naturally fact-intensive and, without the benefit of a transcript, are not subject to appellate review absent some defect on the face of the final judgment. Van Epps v. Hartzell, 934 So.2d 590, 592 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, C.J., and MONACO, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 So. 3d 1215, 2012 WL 966600, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-lemon-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack