ZACHARY RANKIN v. BLAINE LOUNSBURY

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 15, 2023
Docket21-2472
StatusPublished

This text of ZACHARY RANKIN v. BLAINE LOUNSBURY (ZACHARY RANKIN v. BLAINE LOUNSBURY) 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
ZACHARY RANKIN v. BLAINE LOUNSBURY, (Fla. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed March 15, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-2472 Lower Tribunal No. 21-12-P ________________

Zachary Rankin, Appellant,

vs.

Blaine Lounsbury, Appellee.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Sharon I. Hamilton, Judge.

Orshan, Spann, & Fernandez-Mesa, and Steven P. Spann, for appellant.

Nancy A. Hass, P.A., and Nancy A. Hass (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before SCALES, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.

MILLER, J. Appellant, Zachary Rankin, the father, challenges a final judgment

establishing paternity and a parenting plan. On appeal, the father contends

the trial court violated his due process rights by awarding appellee, Blaine

Lounsbury, the mother, sole decision-making authority as to the educational

and non-emergency medical needs of the minor child in the event the parties

are unable to agree. In her pleadings and other written submissions, the

mother specifically requested an order “[e]stablishing a parenting plan that

provides for shared responsibility of the minor child, if appropriate,” and

detailed the historical refusal by the father to cooperate in joint decisions.

Further, the issues precipitating this resistance were extensively litigated at

trial. As the decision below is undeniably supported by competent,

substantial evidence, we affirm the well-reasoned order under review in all

respects and write only to commend the trial judge for her judicious handling

of this contentious and difficult case. See Cruz v. Domenech, 905 So. 2d

938, 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Moncher v. Maine, 892 So. 2d 1147, 1148–50

(Fla. 5th DCA 2005); see also Regan v. Regan, 660 So. 2d 1166, 1167 (Fla.

3d DCA 1995); Moses v. Moses, 347 So. 3d 385, 390 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021);

Schneider v. Schneider, 864 So. 2d 1193, 1194–95 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); §

61.13(2)(c)2.(a), Fla. Stat. (2021) amended by ch. 2021-139, § 1, Laws of

Fla.

2 Affirmed.

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

Related

Cruz v. Domenech
905 So. 2d 938 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Schneider v. Schneider
864 So. 2d 1193 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Regan v. Regan
660 So. 2d 1166 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Moncher v. Maine
892 So. 2d 1147 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
ZACHARY RANKIN v. BLAINE LOUNSBURY, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zachary-rankin-v-blaine-lounsbury-fladistctapp-2023.