Michael Lindstrom v. Ana Paula Maschioro Lindstrom

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed April 2, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-2035 Lower Tribunal No. 21-13275 ________________

Michael Lindstrom, Appellant,

vs.

Ana Paula Maschioro Lindstrom, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Christina Marie DiRaimondo, Judge.

Marti Goldstein, P.A., and Marti Goldstein, for appellant.

No appearance, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM. In this paternity action, the Appellant Michael Lindstrom asserts that

the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the Uniform

Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”) applies. We

disagree.

The UCCJEA is “a jurisdictional act which controls custody disputes.”

Arjona v. Torres, 941 So. 2d 451, 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (emphasis

omitted). And it only applies where custody is at issue. See § 61.503(4),

Fla. Stat. (2023) (“‘Child custody proceeding’ means a proceeding in which

legal custody, physical custody, residential care, or visitation with respect to

a child is an issue. The term includes a proceeding for divorce, separation,

neglect, abuse, dependency, guardianship, paternity, termination of parental

rights, and protection from domestic violence, in which the issue may

appear.”); id. at (3) (“‘Child custody determination’ . . . does not include an

order relating to child support or other monetary obligation of an individual.”).

The parties here did not dispute custody of the minor child. As a result, the

trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over this paternity action. See

Nissen v. Cortez Moreno, 10 So. 3d 1110, 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009);

Sanchez v. Fernandez, 915 So. 2d 192, 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

Affirmed.