Yenny N. Gonzalez v. Paul D. Walker

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Yenny N. Gonzalez v. Paul D. Walker

190 So. 3d 698, 2016 WL 2906746, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7649

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 18, 2016

Docket4D14-4013

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 190 So. 3d 698 (Yenny N. Gonzalez v. Paul D. Walker) 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

Yenny N. Gonzalez v. Paul D. Walker, 190 So. 3d 698, 2016 WL 2906746, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7649 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

HANZMAN, MICHAEL A., Associate Judge.

- Appellant Yenny -Gonzalez challenges the trial court’s “Final Judgment of Paternity, Timesharing, Child Support and other Relief,” állegirig multiple errors. We affirm with one exception. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court’s grant of ultimate decision making authority to the appellee was an abuse of discretion as: (a) the pleadings did not place appellant on adequate notice that this relief was being sought, Cruz v. Domenech, 905 So.2d 938, 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); and (b) no competent evidence showed “a continuing pattern of hostility that reasonably would lead one to conclude that the parties [would] be unable to effectively work together for their child’s best interests.” Fazzaro v. Fazzaro, 110 So.3d 49, 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). We therefore direct the trial court to enter an Amended Final Judgment providing that the parties *699 confer and jointly make all major* decisions regarding the welfare of the child.

Affirmed in part, Reversed in part and Remanded.

DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

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

HANZMAN, MICHAEL A., Associate Judge.

- Appellant Yenny -Gonzalez challenges the trial court’s “Final Judgment of Paternity, Timesharing, Child Support and other Relief,” állegirig multiple errors. We affirm with one exception. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court’s grant of ultimate decision making authority to the appellee was an abuse of discretion as: (a) the pleadings did not place appellant on adequate notice that this relief was being sought, Cruz v. Domenech, 905 So.2d 938, 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); and (b) no competent evidence showed “a continuing pattern of hostility that reasonably would lead one to conclude that the parties [would] be unable to effectively work together for their child’s best interests.” Fazzaro v. Fazzaro, 110 So.3d 49, 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). We therefore direct the trial court to enter an Amended Final Judgment providing that the parties *699 confer and jointly make all major* decisions regarding the welfare of the child.

Affirmed in part, Reversed in part and Remanded.

DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 So. 3d 698, 2016 WL 2906746, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yenny-n-gonzalez-v-paul-d-walker-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack