Lexplug logoLexplug

Schwieterman v. Schwieterman

District Court of Appeal of Florida
114 So.3d 984, 2012 WL 1885907, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8395 (2012)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A court cannot delegate a parent's fundamental decision-making authority regarding their child to a third party, such as a grandparent, in a parenting plan. All time-sharing determinations must be based exclusively on the best interests of the child, as there is no legal presumption in Florida for or against any specific time-sharing schedule.


Facts:

  • Lissette C. Schwieterman and her husband married in 2007 and had one child in 2008.
  • During the marriage, the child's paternal grandmother often provided care while both parents worked.
  • The marriage deteriorated, leading to dissolution proceedings.
  • During the separation, the former husband was involuntarily committed under the Baker Act after threatening to kill himself and the child.
  • The former husband was subsequently diagnosed with adjustment, depressed mood, and paranoid personality disorders.
  • Following his commitment, the former husband engaged in counseling and, according to the trial court's findings, had no further temper outbursts.
  • Lissette C. Schwieterman developed concerns about the former husband's mental health and at times denied him visitation with the child.

Procedural Posture:

  • Lissette C. Schwieterman (Former wife) and her husband initiated dissolution of marriage proceedings in a Florida trial court.
  • The trial court conducted a hearing to determine a final parenting plan and time-sharing schedule.
  • The former wife submitted a proposed parenting plan that would have granted the former husband only two days of supervised visitation per month.
  • The trial court entered a final judgment of dissolution that established a 50/50 time-sharing schedule.
  • The judgment also included provisions authorizing the former husband's parents to resolve disputes between the parents and to hold the child's legal documents.
  • Lissette C. Schwieterman, as the appellant, appealed the final judgment to the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal.

Locked

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 provision in a parenting plan that grants a child's grandparents authority to resolve parental disputes and control the child's legal documents unlawfully interfere with a parent's fundamental rights?


Opinions:

Majority - Cohen, J.

Yes. A parent has a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their child, and a court order delegating ultimate decision-making authority to a third party is an improper interference with that right. The court held that provisions allowing the former husband's parents to act as referees in parental disputes, make decisions for the child, and hold the child’s legal documents were an unconstitutional delegation of parental authority. Citing Troxel v. Granville, the court affirmed that parents' rights include making decisions in the child's best interest without interference from third parties. In the event of a deadlock, parents must return to court for a resolution, rather than relying on a third-party tie-breaker. The court did, however, affirm the 50/50 time-sharing schedule, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. It clarified that under Florida Statute § 61.13, the sole standard is the 'best interests of the child,' and there is no longer any presumption for or against equal time-sharing.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the constitutional doctrine protecting the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, even in the context of a contentious divorce. It establishes a clear boundary for trial courts, prohibiting them from outsourcing parental or judicial decision-making power to third parties like relatives. The ruling solidifies that while courts have broad discretion in crafting parenting plans, this discretion does not extend to diminishing a fit parent's constitutional rights. Furthermore, the opinion confirms a significant shift in Florida family law, explicitly stating that no time-sharing schedule, including 50/50, is legally presumed to be correct, thereby mandating a case-by-case analysis based solely on the child's best interests.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Schwieterman v. Schwieterman (2012) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Schwieterman v. Schwieterman