Loebs v. Loebs

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Loebs v. Loebs

185 So. 3d 721, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 2402, 2016 WL 671981

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 19, 2016

Docket2D14-191

StatusPublished

This text of 185 So. 3d 721 (Loebs v. Loebs) 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

Loebs v. Loebs, 185 So. 3d 721, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 2402, 2016 WL 671981 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*722 CRENSHAW, Judge.

Matthew Loebs,' the Former Husband, challenges the trial court’s orders entered on the Former Wife’s Petition Seeking Modification of Parenting Plan Final Order.. The issues presented for our consideration concern timesharing, child support, arid attorney’s fees.

To the extent the Former Husband challenges the award of attorneys fees, we dismiss the appeal because the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount of the award. See Card v. Card, 122 So.3d 436, 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (explaining that an order determining only the entitlement to attorney’s fees without setting the amount is nonfinal and nonap-pealable).

The Former Husband also argues that a portion of the December 9, 2013, order which awards shared parental responsibility but provides that “if a child does not desire to attend an extracurricular activity, the child shall not be required to attend,” is contradictory to the award of shared. parental responsibility. See § 61.046(17), Fla. Stat. (2013) (“ ‘Shared parental responsibility’ means a courfe-or-dered relationship in which both parents retain full parental rights and responsibilities with respect to their child and in which both parents confer with each other so that major decisions affecting the welfare of the child will be determined jointly.”). Because we agree that this provision improperly delegates parental decision-making authority to the minor children, we reverse this portion of the order1 and remand with directions to strike the provision. C f. Orizondo v. Orizondo, 146 So.3d 151, 152 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (“[T]he trial court’s admitted abdication to the desires of the children constitutes reversible error.”); Elkins v. Vanden Bosch, 433 So.2d 1251, 1253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (“The law does not ... gratify the wishes- of children at the expense of the rights of a parent. Were it otherwise, the law would encourage manipulation by both children and parents arid foster a breakdown in discipline, neither of which is in1 the best interests of children.” (citation omitted)).

We affirm on all other issues raised in this appeal without further comment.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. -

WALLACE and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.

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

*722 CRENSHAW, Judge.

Matthew Loebs,' the Former Husband, challenges the trial court’s orders entered on the Former Wife’s Petition Seeking Modification of Parenting Plan Final Order.. The issues presented for our consideration concern timesharing, child support, arid attorney’s fees.

To the extent the Former Husband challenges the award of attorneys fees, we dismiss the appeal because the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount of the award. See Card v. Card, 122 So.3d 436, 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (explaining that an order determining only the entitlement to attorney’s fees without setting the amount is nonfinal and nonap-pealable).

The Former Husband also argues that a portion of the December 9, 2013, order which awards shared parental responsibility but provides that “if a child does not desire to attend an extracurricular activity, the child shall not be required to attend,” is contradictory to the award of shared. parental responsibility. See § 61.046(17), Fla. Stat. (2013) (“ ‘Shared parental responsibility’ means a courfe-or-dered relationship in which both parents retain full parental rights and responsibilities with respect to their child and in which both parents confer with each other so that major decisions affecting the welfare of the child will be determined jointly.”). Because we agree that this provision improperly delegates parental decision-making authority to the minor children, we reverse this portion of the order1 and remand with directions to strike the provision. C f. Orizondo v. Orizondo, 146 So.3d 151, 152 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (“[T]he trial court’s admitted abdication to the desires of the children constitutes reversible error.”); Elkins v. Vanden Bosch, 433 So.2d 1251, 1253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (“The law does not ... gratify the wishes- of children at the expense of the rights of a parent. Were it otherwise, the law would encourage manipulation by both children and parents arid foster a breakdown in discipline, neither of which is in1 the best interests of children.” (citation omitted)).

We affirm on all other issues raised in this appeal without further comment.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. -

WALLACE and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 So. 3d 721, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 2402, 2016 WL 671981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loebs-v-loebs-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack