Shugar v. Shugar

924 So. 2d 941, 2006 WL 859200
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 5, 2006
Docket1D05-5569
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 924 So. 2d 941 (Shugar v. Shugar) 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
Shugar v. Shugar, 924 So. 2d 941, 2006 WL 859200 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

924 So.2d 941 (2006)

Michelle C. SHUGAR, Petitioner,
v.
Joel K. SHUGAR, Respondent.

No. 1D05-5569.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 5, 2006.

Robert A. Sandow, Live Oak, for Petitioner.

Joseph R. Boyd, Joseph A. Boyd, Jr., and J. Robert Boyd, Jr. of Boyd, Lindsey *942 & Sliger, P.L., Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Michelle C. Shugar contends in her petition for writ of certiorari that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by issuing three orders ruling that the guardian ad litem (GAL), appointed for the benefit of the parties' minor son, has the authority to make all decisions regarding visitation of the child with his parents. We grant the petition and remand for further proceedings.

Section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2005), sets forth the trial court's obligations when determining custody and visitation matters. Section 61.13(2)(a), provides that "[t]he court shall have jurisdiction to determine custody"; subsection (2)(b)(1) requires "[t]he court [to] determine all matters relating to custody of each minor child of the parties in accordance with the best interests of the child"; and subsection (2)(b)2.b. directs "[t]he court" to determine visitation rights of a parent when it has ordered sole parental responsibility to the other parent.[1] (Emphasis added.)

Courts may not delegate their statutory authority to determine visitation to GALs, attorneys, or experts. See, e.g., McAlister v. Shaver, 633 So.2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Wattles v. Wattles, 631 So.2d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Roski v. Roski, 730 So.2d 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Scaringe v. Herrick, 711 So.2d 204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (Blue, J., specially concurring). Cf. Singleton v. State, 582 So.2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

The petition is GRANTED.

ERVIN, PADOVANO and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

NOTES

[1] Section 61.403, Florida Statutes (2005), outlines the powers and authority of a GAL. It requires the GAL to work closely with the court to obtain evidence and information, and authorizes the GAL to make recommendations and reports to the court. None of the provisions authorizes the GAL to make independent decisions that are binding on the parties.

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

Related

Keith Malley v. Cortney Malley
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2024
Rocio Merlihan v. Daniel McWilliam Skinner, Jr.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2024
TERRI FOSTER v. GUARDIANSHIP OF CAYMAN FOSTER
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2023
RICHARD BARRACK v. MICHELE BARRACK
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2021
SRINATH SUBRAMANIAN v. VEENA SUBRAMANIAN
239 So. 3d 719 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Larocka v. Larocka
43 So. 3d 911 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Bencomo v. Bencomo
147 P.3d 67 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
924 So. 2d 941, 2006 WL 859200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shugar-v-shugar-fladistctapp-2006.