Carroll v. Carroll
1992 WL 20015, 593 So. 2d 1131 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A noncustodial parent's child support obligation cannot be temporarily suspended based solely on a mature child's refusal to visit, even if the child actively seeks to terminate visitation, unless there is a finding that the custodial parent orchestrated the child's refusal.
Facts:
- Jane Gibbons Carroll (the former wife) and Ira Greene Briggs Carroll, Sr. (the former husband) were divorced.
- For six years following their divorce, Jane and Ira experienced bitter strife concerning Ira's rights of visitation with their three children, including their son, Hunter Carroll.
- Hunter Carroll, who was sixteen years old, referred to his father as 'Mr. Carroll' and indicated no respect for him, with their relationship having escalated to a physical confrontation.
- Hunter actively resisted visitation with Ira and believed his father's behavior had driven him to this emotional juncture.
- Hunter, described as a sophisticated, bright, and articulate sixteen-year-old, filed a motion through his mother's attorney to terminate the requirement that he visit his father.
- The trial court record contained no findings that Jane Carroll orchestrated Hunter's motion to terminate visitation or his refusal to visit Ira.
Procedural Posture:
- Jane Gibbons Carroll and Ira Greene Briggs Carroll, Sr. obtained a final judgment of dissolution of marriage.
- Following years of disputes regarding visitation, their sixteen-year-old son, Hunter Carroll, filed a motion in the trial court (through his mother's attorney) to terminate his visitation requirement with Ira Carroll, Sr.
- The trial court granted Hunter Carroll's motion to terminate visitation.
- The trial court, on its own motion, subsequently issued a supplemental final judgment that temporarily suspended Ira Carroll, Sr.'s child support obligation for Hunter.
- Jane Carroll filed a motion for rehearing of the supplemental final judgment, which the trial court denied.
- Jane Carroll appealed the supplemental final judgment temporarily suspending child support to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a noncustodial parent's child support obligation cease when their sixteen-year-old child, of sufficient maturity and intellect, actively resists visitation and initiates a motion to terminate it, in the absence of a finding that the custodial parent orchestrated the child's refusal?
Opinions:
Majority - Parker, Judge
No, a noncustodial parent's child support obligation does not cease upon a sixteen-year-old child's refusal to visit the noncustodial parent, even if the child actively seeks to terminate visitation, unless the custodial parent is found to have orchestrated the refusal. The court reversed the trial court's temporary suspension of child support, concluding that both natural parents share a duty to support a minor child, a duty that is not contingent upon visitation rights. Florida statutes, specifically Chapter 61, provide that child support cannot be conditioned upon visitation, and offer remedies for a noncustodial parent denied visitation by the custodial parent if the custodial parent is at fault. The court distinguished Putnam v. Putnam, believing subsequent statutory changes in Chapter 61 have overruled its prior holding. While acknowledging language in Riley v. Connor suggesting that a child's disrespectful conduct could justify suspending support, the court declined to apply it in this case, emphasizing that conduct by a child, not shown to be orchestrated by a parent, should not relieve a parent of their support duty, as this would unfairly punish the custodial parent's ability to provide for the child's needs. The court noted the absence of any finding that Mrs. Carroll orchestrated her son's actions.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces Florida's public policy that child support is an independent duty of both parents for the benefit of the child, not a tool to enforce visitation. It significantly limits a trial court's discretion to suspend child support as leverage to compel visitation, particularly when the child's refusal is not attributed to the custodial parent's manipulation. The ruling protects a child's right to financial support even amidst severe parental conflict and directly addresses the difficult scenario of a mature child refusing contact with a noncustodial parent, preventing the support obligation from being used as a punitive measure.
