In a child custody and visitation case, the trial court cannot order a timesharing plan that is materially different than the plan the parties requested. In Krift v. Obenour, the Florida Court of Appeal recently stated: "Because the rotating timesharing plan ordered by the trial court was such a material departure from the plan the parties requested, we reverse and remand for further proceedings on this issue. On appeal, the former wife argues that the trial court erred by ordering a rotating timesharing plan that neither party requested in their pleadings oral any time during trial. "[U]nder Florida Law a trial court may not order an annual, rotating time-sharing where neither parent requested such a plan in the pleadings, nor argued for the plan at the final hearing." Bainbridge v. Pratt, 68 So. 3d 310,314 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); see also Flemming v. Flemming, 742 So. 2d 843, 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) ("The trial court did not have authority to rule on matters that were 'not the subject of appropriate pleadings and notice.' ").
Posts tagged "Child Custody and Visitation Attorney; North Palm Beach"
Bold labels are required.