Munroe v. OLIBRICE
2012 WL 1020061, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4867, 83 So.3d 985 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida law, a court establishing a child custody arrangement must create or approve a comprehensive parenting plan that meets specific statutory requirements; a time-sharing schedule alone is legally insufficient.
Facts:
- A husband and wife with minor children were undergoing a dissolution of marriage.
- The husband was unemployed at the time of the final hearing.
- During the dissolution proceedings, the parties operated under a court-ordered alternating night time-sharing schedule.
- The court, at the final hearing, established a new time-sharing schedule, granting the father custody from Monday through Thursday and the first weekend of the month.
- This new schedule substantially reduced the wife's time with the children from twenty nights per month to six.
- The court justified the new schedule by stating it provided better stability for the children, helped their schoolwork, and eliminated the need for third-party childcare since the husband was unemployed.
Procedural Posture:
- In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the Florida circuit court (trial court) orally established a time-sharing schedule at the final hearing.
- The court subsequently entered a one-page written order setting forth the time-sharing schedule.
- The wife filed a motion for rehearing, arguing the court failed to conduct a 'best interest' analysis and failed to establish a parenting plan as required by statute.
- The court entered a second order, finding its schedule was in the children's best interest and making minor amendments for holidays, but it did not create a full parenting plan.
- The wife (appellant) appealed both trial court orders to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
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 trial court commit a reversible error by establishing a child time-sharing schedule without creating or approving a comprehensive parenting plan that addresses parental responsibility and other statutory requirements pursuant to Florida Statute § 61.13?
Opinions:
Majority - Gerber, J.
Yes. A court errs by establishing a time-sharing schedule without also creating or approving a comprehensive parenting plan. Florida Statute § 61.13 requires that a time-sharing schedule be determined as one component of a larger parenting plan, not as a separate determination. This plan must, at a minimum, detail how parents will share daily tasks, designate responsibility for healthcare and school matters, and specify methods of communication. While the trial court sufficiently found that its time-sharing schedule was in the children's best interests based on evidence of stability and academic improvement, its failure to create or approve a parenting plan that satisfies the explicit requirements of § 61.13(2)(b) necessitates reversal and remand for the creation of such a plan.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the mandatory nature of the detailed parenting plan requirements under Florida's family law statutes. It clarifies for trial courts that simply creating a time-sharing schedule, even one purportedly in the child's best interests, is insufficient. The ruling emphasizes that the time-sharing schedule is an integrated component of a broader, statutorily defined plan that governs all major aspects of post-divorce co-parenting. This holding serves to prevent future litigation by forcing parties and courts to address critical issues like healthcare, education, and communication upfront, rather than leaving them ambiguous.
