Session v. Bradshaw

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Session v. Bradshaw

202 So. 3d 955, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16221

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 2, 2016

DocketNo. 4D15-4254

StatusPublished

This text of 202 So. 3d 955 (Session v. Bradshaw) 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

Session v. Bradshaw, 202 So. 3d 955, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16221 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order that granted in part appellant’s motion and vacated the portions of the paternity judgment concerning parental responsibility, time sharing, and the parenting plan. Armstrong v. Panzarino, 812 So.2d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that testimony from both sides was necessary before an ultimate decision can be made in the best interest of the child. Id. at 514; see also Webber v. Novelli, 756 So.2d 164 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

We affirm the portion of the order that left undisturbed the child support and financial obligations determined in the judgment. We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s refusal to vacate these portions of the judgment, which were entered after hearing extensive testimony from both parties on these issues over multiple days.

Affirmance is without prejudice for appellant to seek modification of the support and financial obligations if necessary following the trial court’s ultimate ruling on time sharing and parenting. See § 61.30(ll)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014) (providing for adjustment of child support where a timesharing schedule provides that the child spend a substantial amount of time with each parent).

Affirmed without prejudice.

GROSS, LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order that granted in part appellant’s motion and vacated the portions of the paternity judgment concerning parental responsibility, time sharing, and the parenting plan. Armstrong v. Panzarino, 812 So.2d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that testimony from both sides was necessary before an ultimate decision can be made in the best interest of the child. Id. at 514; see also Webber v. Novelli, 756 So.2d 164 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

We affirm the portion of the order that left undisturbed the child support and financial obligations determined in the judgment. We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s refusal to vacate these portions of the judgment, which were entered after hearing extensive testimony from both parties on these issues over multiple days.

Affirmance is without prejudice for appellant to seek modification of the support and financial obligations if necessary following the trial court’s ultimate ruling on time sharing and parenting. See § 61.30(ll)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014) (providing for adjustment of child support where a timesharing schedule provides that the child spend a substantial amount of time with each parent).

Affirmed without prejudice.

GROSS, LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 So. 3d 955, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/session-v-bradshaw-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack