Straney v. Floethe
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4870, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 746, 58 So. 3d 374 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An order modifying child custody must be based on an express finding that a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances has occurred since the entry of the final judgment, in addition to a determination that the modification is in the child's best interest.
Facts:
- Erin Straney and Brian Lee Floethe divorced in August 2007, resolving all significant issues in a marital settlement agreement.
- The agreement designated Ms. Straney as the primary residential custodian of their young daughter and provided Mr. Floethe with a visitation schedule.
- Almost immediately, the parties experienced difficulties complying with the visitation schedule.
- Mr. Floethe claimed Ms. Straney unilaterally restricted his contact with their daughter, citing their differing religious beliefs and lifestyles.
- Ms. Straney admitted she restricted contact when she believed it conflicted with the values she was attempting to teach their daughter.
Procedural Posture:
- Nine months after the final judgment of dissolution, Mr. Floethe filed a petition in the trial court (court of first instance) to modify the child custody arrangement, alleging a material and substantial change in circumstances.
- The trial court conducted a hearing on Mr. Floethe's petition.
- The trial court entered an order modifying the custody arrangement, establishing a new parenting plan, and modifying the parties’ time-sharing with the child.
- Ms. Straney moved for rehearing of the trial court's order.
- The trial court declined to provide additional explanation for its decision during rehearing, except to state that Ms. Straney’s religious faith played no part in the decision.
- Ms. Straney (appellant) appealed the trial court's order modifying custody to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court).
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 err by modifying a child custody arrangement without an express finding that a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances has occurred since the entry of the original final judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Altenbernd, Judge
Yes, a trial court errs by modifying a child custody arrangement without an express finding that a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances has occurred since the original final judgment. It is well-established Florida law that an order modifying child custody requires a determination that (1) a substantial and material change in circumstances has occurred since the entry of the final judgment, (2) it is in the child’s best interest to modify custody, and (3) the change in circumstances was not reasonably contemplated when the trial court entered the original final judgment, as per Wade v. Hirschman. While a court must consider the factors in section 61.13(3) and is not required to enter detailed findings for each factor, an express finding regarding the substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances is mandatory. In this case, the trial court failed to make such an express finding, and the record does not permit the appellate court to conclude that such a finding was implicit in the order. Therefore, it appears the trial court applied the wrong legal standard by not requiring Mr. Floethe to prove this essential element.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the high threshold for modifying child custody orders in Florida, emphasizing that judicial discretion must operate within clearly established legal frameworks. It clarifies that even with the introduction of new statutory guidelines for parenting plans (like section 61.13(3)), the foundational common law requirement of a 'substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances' remains paramount and must be explicitly found by the trial court. The decision underscores the importance of clear judicial findings, particularly in sensitive cases, to ensure proper application of law, provide stability for children, and facilitate meaningful appellate review. Future cases will likely cite Straney to require trial courts to articulate the specific factual basis for custody modifications.
