Court Rules On Timesharing Amid Domestic Violence Allegations

Allegations of domestic violence can have a profound impact on Florida family law proceedings. This is especially true when courts must balance protection, parental rights, and the best interests of the child. The Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in Lonsdale v. Elbanna illustrates how strictly Florida courts apply those standards when a parent seeks to modify an injunction and expand timesharing after a finding of domestic violence.

In the Lonsdale case, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s order that would have allowed a father accused of domestic violence to transition from supervised to unsupervised visitation. The ruling illustrates that courts cannot loosen restrictions tied to a domestic violence injunction without first finding a “substantial and material change in circumstances” and confirming that the order serves the child’s best interests.

Background of the case 

This case began when the mother obtained a final injunction for protection against domestic violence against the father. The injunction was extended for five years and included a provision that permitted the father only supervised visitation with the couple’s minor child.

Afterwards, the father filed a motion seeking to modify the injunction to allow unsupervised timesharing. He argued that he had complied with the various conditions imposed on him by the court, and he no longer posed a threat. The trial court agreed in part and entered an order that would automatically permit the unsupervised visits once the father completed certain prerequisites, such as counseling and anger-management classes.

The mother appealed. She asserted that the court erred by modifying the injunction without making the factual findings required under Florida law.

The appeal 

In this case, the Second District Court of Appeal agreed with the mother and reversed the trial court’s modification order. The appellate judges highlighted two core principles of Florida family law:

• Modification requires “substantial, material, and unanticipated change” in circumstances. A trial court cannot modify a custody or timesharing order without specific findings that conditions have meaningfully improved since the original order. The father’s personal improvements did not qualify on their own.

• The child’s best interests must be explicitly addressed. Even when circumstances have changed, the court has to determine that the modification serves the best interests of the child. In this case, the trial court failed to make any express finding concerning the child’s well-being or best interests prior to authorizing the shift from supervised to unsupervised visitation.

In this case, the Second DCA noted that while Florida encourages parents to repair relationships, public policy cannot override statutory safeguards designed to protect vulnerable people from domestic violence.

Talk to an Orlando Domestic Violence Attorney Today 

Greater Orlando Family Law represents the interests of Orlando couples during their divorce. Call our Orlando family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.

Source:

caselaw.findlaw.com/court/fl-district-court-of-appeal/2147651.html