Palmer v. Palmer: Protecting a Child’s Health in a Contested Parenting Plan

When parents disagree about the terms of a parenting plan, the guiding touchstone is always the best interests of the child. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeals’ decision in Palmer v. Palmer provides a helpful illustration of how courts can intervene when a child’s health is at stake in the allocation of time-sharing and restrictions under a dissolution of marriage.

Background of the case

In Palmer v. Palmer, the parties were engaged in a contested dissolution of marriage. Among the children at issue, one suffered from medically documented canine allergies. The mother sought to impose a restriction in the parenting plan that would prohibit the child’s exposure to the father’s new girlfriend’s dogs during their time-sharing. The trial court ultimately entered the final judgment dissolving the marriage. This set forth time-sharing and a parenting plan, but declined to include the mother’s requested dog-exposure restriction.

The appeal

On appeal, the mother raised three issues:

• Whether the trial court erred by permitting the father to reopen evidence after the trial had concluded
• Whether the time-sharing allocation was improper
• Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to impose the requested restriction on the child’s exposure to dogs

In this case, the appellate court affirmed on the first two issues but reversed on the third.

The court’s rationale

With respect to the child-allergy matter, the Fifth District Court of Appeal found that the trial court’s refusal to include the restriction constituted an abuse of discretion in light of the evidence of the child’s allergy and the father’s living arrangement with dogs. The court emphasized that although trial courts have broad discretion in time-sharing and parenting plan matters, that discretion must be exercised under the framework of Florida Statute § 61.13, which governs parental responsibility and time-sharing as well as the best interest standard. Accordingly, the matter was remanded for the trial court to reconsider the parenting plan and include appropriate restrictions to ensure the child’s health and safety.

Practical lessons for parents facing time-sharing disputes

• Your child’s health concerns matter – If your child has allergies, medical needs, sensory issues, or any other condition that could impact time-sharing, the court must consider it.
• You can ask for reasonable restrictions – These could include limiting exposure to pets, smoke, certain foods, or unsafe living conditions. Asking for a restriction does not make you uncooperative.
• Evidence is powerful – The mother in Palmer succeeded because she had clear medical proof of the child’s allergy.

Talk to a St. Petersburg, FL, Family Law Attorney Today

The Law Office of Kevin F. Coleman represents the interests of parents during contested custody cases. Call our St. Petersburg family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.

Source:

law.justia.com/cases/florida/fifth-district-court-of-appeal/2016/5d15-2308.html