Ilse Gevaert v. Allan Teh

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: September 17, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-2280
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed September 17, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-2280 Lower Tribunal No. 19-7811-FC-04 ________________

Ilse Gevaert, Appellant,

vs.

Allan Teh, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Spencer Multack, Judge.

Hoffman, Larin & Agnetti, P.A., and John B. Agnetti and Daniel H. Kent, for appellant.

Buchbinder & Elegant, P.A., and Harris J. Buchbinder, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and GOODEN, JJ.

GOODEN, J. Appellant Ilse Gevaert appeals an order denying her petition to

relocate her minor child from Miami, Florida to Studio City, California. She

asserts that, when the burden shifted, Appellee Allan Teh did not produce

sufficient evidence that the proposed relocation was not in the best interest

of the child. See § 61.13001(8), Fla. Stat. (2024). Specifically, she asserts

that his evidence did not overcome her expert witness’ testimony.

But this argument suffers from tunnel vision. Indeed, the expert

witness’ testimony focused solely on what schools are best for the child.

Whereas the trial court was required to consider a wider range of factors—

those set forth in section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes. See §

61.13001(7)(a)-(k), Fla. Stat. And it did.

In reaching its conclusion, the trial court scrutinized the evidence

presented by both parties and performed a detailed analysis of the factors in

61.13001(7), Florida Statutes. Ultimately, it found Teh met his burden and

the proposed relocation was not in the best interest of the child. The trial

court did not abuse its discretion by denying relocation. Sanabria v.

Sanabria, 271 So. 3d 1101, 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). Its findings are

supported by competent, substantial evidence. Id. See also Eckert v.

Eckert, 107 So. 3d 1235, 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“The trial court’s

2 decision will be affirmed if the statutory findings are supported by substantial

competent evidence.”). And so, we affirm.

Affirmed.