JESSICA RUSSELL n/k/a JESSICA WILLIAMS v. JOEL ARONOWICZ
This text of JESSICA RUSSELL n/k/a JESSICA WILLIAMS v. JOEL ARONOWICZ (JESSICA RUSSELL n/k/a JESSICA WILLIAMS v. JOEL ARONOWICZ) 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.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July 12, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-1392 Lower Tribunal No. 13-2364 ________________
Jessica Russell, n/k/a Jessica Williams, Appellant,
vs.
Joel Aronowicz, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ivonne Cuesta, Judge.
Jessica Russell, n/k/a Jessica Williams, in proper person.
Angelena M. Root, P.A., and Angelena M. Conant (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.
Before SCALES, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.
GORDO, J. The Mother 1 appeals a final judgment granting the Father’s 2 petition
for modification for timesharing and parental responsibility of their one minor
child. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). After entering a
final judgment in 2014, the trial court entered a temporary modification in
2017 awarding the Father majority timesharing and parental responsibility
due to the Mother’s failure to meet the minor child’s extensive mental health
needs. “An appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s custody decision
unless there is no substantial, competent evidence to support the decision.”
Roberts v. Diaz, 343 So. 3d 156, 157 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), reh’g denied (Aug.
17, 2022) (quoting Winters v. Brown, 51 So. 3d 656, 658 (Fla. 4th DCA
2011)). “[A] modification of a parenting plan and time-sharing schedule
requires a showing of a substantial, material, and unanticipated change of
circumstances.” § 61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2022). To modify parental
responsibility “the best interest of the child shall be the primary
consideration.” § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2022). “The decision of the trial court
comes to this court clothed in a presumption of correctness, and the burden
is on the appellant to demonstrate reversible error.” Corridon v. Corridon,
317 So. 3d 1198, 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (quoting Chirino v. Chirino, 710
1 Jessica Russell, n/k/a Jessica Williams. 2 Joel Aronowicz.
2 So. 2d 696, 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)). While this Court does not have the
benefit of a transcript here, the trial court’s order described that the Mother,
the Father, the Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”) and the minor child’s therapist Dr.
Howard Marcus, all testified at the hearing. The trial court’s well-written order
found there was a substantial, material and unanticipated change of
circumstances that warranted the timesharing and parental responsibility
modification and was in the best interest of the minor child. Finding no error
in the trial court’s detailed seventeen-page final judgment, as it thoroughly
considered the modification pursuant to the requisite twenty statutory factors
listed in section 61.13(3)(a)–(t), Florida Statutes, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
JESSICA RUSSELL n/k/a JESSICA WILLIAMS v. JOEL ARONOWICZ, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jessica-russell-nka-jessica-williams-v-joel-aronowicz-fladistctapp-2023.