Shoko Johnson v. Nicholas Dean Johnson

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 4, 2024
Docket4D2023-3111
StatusPublished

This text of Shoko Johnson v. Nicholas Dean Johnson (Shoko Johnson v. Nicholas Dean Johnson) 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
Shoko Johnson v. Nicholas Dean Johnson, (Fla. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

SHOKO JOHNSON, Appellant,

v.

NICHOLAS DEAN JOHNSON, Appellee.

No. 4D2023-3111

[September 4, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Leatha D. Mullins, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562022DR002309.

Dulce B. Fazel of Dulce B. Fazel, P.A., Phoenix, AZ, for appellant.

No brief filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, the wife in a pending divorce action, appeals from a temporary relief order. We find merit in her argument that the trial court erred in awarding the husband “ultimate decision-making” while at the same time ordering shared parental responsibility. Clarke v. Stofft, 263 So. 3d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Seligsohn v. Seligsohn, 259 So. 3d 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); McClure v. Beck, 212 So. 3d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); see also Glevis v. Glevis, 310 So. 3d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021). By awarding the husband ultimate decision-making authority on issues affecting the child, the trial court essentially nullified the award of shared parental responsibility. McClure, 212 So. 3d at 398; Glevis, 310 So. 3d at 528.

We reverse that portion of the temporary order for three reasons. First, the husband did not seek ultimate decision-making authority over any issues affecting the child’s welfare. Second, the record does not include evidence to support that award. Third, the order fails to specify matters over which the husband would have ultimate decision-making authority. Louis v. Louis, 324 So. 3d 11, 12 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

Without further discussion, we affirm the remaining portions of the order. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

LEVINE, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

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

Related

SHARONIT AMAR SELIGSOHN v. JACOB SELIGSOHN
259 So. 3d 874 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
ADAM RICHARD CLARKE v. KINSLEY ELIZABETH STOFFT
263 So. 3d 84 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019)
McClure v. Beck
212 So. 3d 396 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Shoko Johnson v. Nicholas Dean Johnson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shoko-johnson-v-nicholas-dean-johnson-fladistctapp-2024.