Talley v. Talley

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Talley v. Talley

654 So. 2d 1306, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5931, 1995 WL 327150

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 2, 1995

DocketNo. 94-1861

StatusPublished

This text of 654 So. 2d 1306 (Talley v. Talley) 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

Talley v. Talley, 654 So. 2d 1306, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5931, 1995 WL 327150 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, Judge.

We cannot say the court abused its very broad discretion in concluding that a substantial change in circumstances warranted the change of the rotating custody arrangement to primary residential. Nevertheless, under the circumstances, the court should have fashioned for this father a minimum visitation schedule consistent with the parenting goals of rotating custody and the “open and liberal” contact referenced in the lower court’s order. C.f. Wattles v. Wattles, 631 So.2d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Buttermore v. Meyer, 559 So.2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); see also Letourneau v. Letourneau, 564 So.2d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We accordingly affirm the judgment, except for the visitation, and remand with directions that the trial court provide for an appropriate minimum visitation schedule.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED.

W. SHARP and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

GRIFFIN, Judge.

We cannot say the court abused its very broad discretion in concluding that a substantial change in circumstances warranted the change of the rotating custody arrangement to primary residential. Nevertheless, under the circumstances, the court should have fashioned for this father a minimum visitation schedule consistent with the parenting goals of rotating custody and the “open and liberal” contact referenced in the lower court’s order. C.f. Wattles v. Wattles, 631 So.2d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Buttermore v. Meyer, 559 So.2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); see also Letourneau v. Letourneau, 564 So.2d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We accordingly affirm the judgment, except for the visitation, and remand with directions that the trial court provide for an appropriate minimum visitation schedule.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED.

W. SHARP and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

654 So. 2d 1306, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5931, 1995 WL 327150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/talley-v-talley-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack