Riley v. Connor

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Riley v. Connor

509 So. 2d 1177, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1548, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9023

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 25, 1987

DocketNo. 86-792

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 509 So. 2d 1177 (Riley v. Connor) 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

Riley v. Connor, 509 So. 2d 1177, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1548, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9023 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial judge’s suspension of the father’s duty to pay support for his dependent son until “a loving father-son relationship has been reestablished with the complete cooperation and full participation by the son” and remand for entry of an order setting the amount of the father’s obligation of support.

We understand and are not in disagreement with what we perceive to have been the intent of the trial court in this-case. However, the condition as imposed is too vague and indefinite to adequately advise this sixteen year old son of his conduct which this condition may have been designed to dispel or dissuade, and, more importantly, it fails to describe the conduct with such particularity that this court can review it as a matter of law. Without attempting to delineate it, we recognize there may be conduct, on the part of a child who has reached an age of discretion of such disrespectful and contumacious character, directed toward the obligor parent, which justifies the trial court’s coercive suspension of the obligor parent’s duty of support during the time of the child’s willful persistence in such conduct.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial judge’s suspension of the father’s duty to pay support for his dependent son until “a loving father-son relationship has been reestablished with the complete cooperation and full participation by the son” and remand for entry of an order setting the amount of the father’s obligation of support.

We understand and are not in disagreement with what we perceive to have been the intent of the trial court in this-case. However, the condition as imposed is too vague and indefinite to adequately advise this sixteen year old son of his conduct which this condition may have been designed to dispel or dissuade, and, more importantly, it fails to describe the conduct with such particularity that this court can review it as a matter of law. Without attempting to delineate it, we recognize there may be conduct, on the part of a child who has reached an age of discretion of such disrespectful and contumacious character, directed toward the obligor parent, which justifies the trial court’s coercive suspension of the obligor parent’s duty of support during the time of the child’s willful persistence in such conduct.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

509 So. 2d 1177, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1548, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riley-v-connor-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack