According to Florida statutory law, the court takes into account the parents’ wishes, considers giving one parent final say over certain aspects of the child, or divides duties between the parents, depending on what’s in the best interests of the child. This can include issues like education, health care, or any other responsibilities the court deems specific to a particular family.
In ordering shared parental responsibility, the court may consider the expressed desires of the parents and may grant to one party the ultimate responsibility over specific aspects of the child’s welfare or may divide those responsibilities between the parties based on the best interests of the child. Areas of responsibility may include education, health care, and any other responsibilities that the court finds unique to a particular family.
See: Florida Statute 61.13(2)(c)(3)
Please note, if a trial court determines that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child, the court must then make a specific finding, either on the record or in the final judgment, that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child:
Where the trial court is required to determine the propriety of shared parental responsibility, a trial court must apply the detriment test under section 61.13(2)(c)(2) to determine whether shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child. Coyne, 895 So. 2d at 472 n.1 (discussing Bader, 639 So. 2d at 124). If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, the trial court must then make a specific finding “either on the record or in the final judgment, that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child.” Id. at 472 (holding the trial court is not required to make any written findings other than that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child, recognizing that delving into the best interest factors not only burdens the trial court but, moreover, would have far-reaching adverse consequences on a child’s privacy interest); A.L.G., 85 So. 3d 527; Coyne, 895 So. 2d 469; Evans v. Woodard, 898 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Decker v. Lyle, 848 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); see also Maslow v. Edwards, 886 So. 2d 1027, 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (employing the best interest of the child standard does not “obviate the necessity of a specific finding that shared *543 parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child before awarding sole parental responsibility to a parent”) (first citing Hicks v. Hicks, 511 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); then citing Nichols v. Nichols, 432 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)).
See: Musgrave v. Musgrave – 290 So. 3d 536
Related:
- Child Custody in Florida
- What Factors Does A Court Use For A Florida Parenting Plan?
- Should custody change be a penalty for missed visitation?
_______________
Do you have questions or comments? Then please feel free to send us an email or call him now at (954) 880-1302.
If you found this information helpful, please share this article and bookmark it for your future reference.