Court Addresses Modification Of Timesharing In Florida Divorce Case

The courts can hold drug and alcohol abuse against a parent during a Florida divorce case. In many situations, the parent cleans up their act, goes to rehab, and manages to remain sober. In these cases, the parent can revisit the timesharing agreement. That’s what happened in the case of Harrell v. Friend (f/k/a Harrell), No. 1D2023-1074 (Fla. 1st DCA May 8, 2024). The father had a history of drug and alcohol abuse, later becoming sober. He sought to petition the court for more time with his children. Below, we’ll take a closer look at the case.

Background of the case 

In this case, the parents had a final judgment that established a parenting plan and a timesharing schedule. The father later filed a supplemental petition to modify timesharing, alleging that since the final judgment:

• He had addressed past alcohol abuse issues through mental health treatment.
• He had no positive alcohol tests during his parenting time.
• The children had grown older and more mature, such that the circumstances surrounding their care had changed.

Unfortunately for the father, the trial court dismissed his petition without an evidentiary hearing, finding that his allegations were legally insufficient to meet the threshold for modification. In a modification case, you must show that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred to warrant revisiting the order.

The appeal 

The question then became: Did the trial court err in dismissing the father’s amended supplemental petition without allowing an evidentiary hearing on whether his allegations constituted a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances that would justify modifying the order?

To modify an existing timesharing agreement, you are required to prove:

• A substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances has occurred since the final judgment.
• The requested modification is in the best interests of the child.

The First District Court of Appeal emphasized that when a petition contains well-pleaded factual allegations that, if proven, could meet this standard, dismissal without an evidentiary hearing is improper.

In this case, the father’s allegations (sustained sobriety, successful treatment, clean testing, and the child’s increased maturity) were specific enough to constitute a substantial and material change in circumstances. The appellate court also noted that Florida precedent disfavors dismissing modification petitions at the pleading stage when the allegations are facially sufficient.

As a result, the appellate court overturned the trial court’s dismissal, allowing the father to move forward with his pleadings.

Key takeaways 

• Threshold for pleading sufficiency is not high – If the allegations could amount to a substantial, material, or unanticipated change, the court must allow an evidentiary hearing.

• Sobriety and rehabilitation can qualify as a material change if they alter a parent’s ability to safely exercise their timesharing.

• Children’s maturation can also support a modification, especially when combined with other changes.

• Courts must be cautious when dismissing modification petitions; denying a hearing can risk reversal.

Talk to a Tampa, FL, Child Custody Lawyer Today 

Faulkner Law Group, PLLC, represents the interests of Tampa residents during custody modification hearings. Call our Tampa family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.

Source:

law.justia.com/cases/florida/first-district-court-of-appeal/2024/1d2023-1074.html