In a child custody and visitation proceeding, to demonstrate a wrongful removal or retention of a child under the Hague Convention, a petitioner must establish: (i) the child is retained in a country outside the country of the child's habitual residence, (ii) the removal must be a violation of the parents right of custody, and in particular the right to determine the child's place of residence, and (iii) the right of custody was being exercised or would have been exercised absent the removal.
A division of property and assets must be based on competent substantial evidence with written findings a fact identifying marital assets and individually identifying significant assets. The valuation of an entire art collection, rather than its component parts, is reversible error. In Williams v. Williams, the Florida Court of Appeals recently stated: "It is unclear from the Final Judgment how the trial court reached the figure of $376,086 in valuing the parties' art collection. This dollar amount does not align with either figure offered by the parties' respective expert witnesses who appraised the collection. The value the trial court placed on the collection is nearly $100,000 below the $470,107 appraisal by the former husband's expert witness and is more than $300,000 below the $688,550 appraisal by the former wife's expert.
In a child custody and visitation proceeding, the constitutional guarantee of due process dictates a full and fair opportunity to be heard in judicial proceedings. The failure to give a party the chance to present witnesses or testify violates this fundamental right. In Cole v. Cole, the Florida Court of Appeal recently stated: "...We conclude that in ruling, without giving the Father an opportunity to present evidence, the trial court abused its discretion and violated the Father's right to procedural due process. The constitutional guarantee of due process dictates a full and fair opportunity to be heard in judicial proceedings. The failure to give a party the chance to present witnesses or testify violates this fundamental right. Henderson v. Lyons, 93 So. 3d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); see also Douglas v. Johnson, 65 So. 3d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Smith v. Smith, 964 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Baron v. Baron, 941 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Pettry v. Pettry, 706 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).