Florida law permits trial courts to temporarily modify (and suspend) child custody and time-sharing without prior notice in “emergencies.” Caselaw defines “emergencies” as threats of physical harm or imminent removal from the state. In Capps (December 2025), the Fourth DCA recognized that “substantial emotional abuse or trauma” may also qualify as an emergency.

The case arose from a contentious marriage dissolution proceeding. Initially, both parents were granted shared parental responsibility and timesharing. However, the situation escalated when the mother filed an emergency motion alleging harm by the father, including allegations of child drug exposure and child sexual abuse.

Shortly thereafter, the father filed a sworn emergency motion claiming the mother fabricated allegations and subjected the children to repeated, unnecessary invasive examinations, including drug testing and pelvic examinations, and that she made repetitive abuse reports that resulted in police and DCF involvement. The GAL corroborated the children were exposed to unnecessary medical and forensic evaluations and investigations. The trial court found that the mother’s actions were causing severe emotional trauma to the children. The trial court entered a temporary emergency order that restricted the mother’s contact with the children to supervised time-sharing.

The Fourth DCA affirmed the trial court’s emergency order pending a full evidentiary hearing. The Fourth DCA emphasized that its decision does not predetermine the outcome of the pending evidentiary hearing but validates the trial court’s authority to act promptly in emergencies, which may include situations in which children are exposed to emotional or psychological harm.

The case is notable because it explicitly recognizes mental and psychological harm as a basis for the domestic relations court to enter temporary, emergency orders on the topic of child time-sharing.

Michael DeVoe is a divorce attorney in Orlando, Florida practicing contested divorce, uncontested divorce, timesharing, visitation, custody, paternity, child support, injunctions, and other family law cases.

In Kiswani v. Hafza (February 14, 2025), the trial court made the former wife’s timesharing contingent on recommendations from medical professionals and allowing the minor child’s therapist “to determine if, when and the parameters of telephonic and/or video contact” should occur between the former wife and the minor child. Although the trial court reserved authority to make the final decision on timesharing, the former wife’s timesharing could not resume absent a stamp of approval from third parties. The Fifth District found this type of delegation of authority to be legally impermissible, even with the retention of veto power. The Fifth District reversed the trial court and remanded for a timesharing plan that complies with legal standards.

There are a fair number of cases that prohibit the trial court from delegating timesharing decisions to third parties. Kiswani is helpful by going as a step further to make clear that retention of “veto power” does not cure otherwise impermissible delegation of judicial responsibility.

Michael DeVoe is a divorce attorney in Orlando, Florida practicing contested divorce, uncontested divorce, timesharing, visitation, custody, paternity, child support, injunctions, and other family law cases.

DCF relies on the public to report suspected child abuse. In Florida, everyone is legally required to report suspected child abuse. It is a crime to fail to report suspected child abuse. F.S. 39.205.

DCF receives abuse reports either by telephone or through their website. The phone number to make an abuse report is 1-800-96-ABUSE (1-800-962-2873). The website address for electronic submission of abuse reports is https://www.myflfamilies.com/services/abuse/abuse-hotline.

Any person who makes an abuse report in good faith is immune from liability. F.S. 39.203(1)(a). But sometimes reporters misuse the system to get an advantage in a divorce or paternity case, especially when parent timesharing is involved.

A false report is defined by law to include a report that is maliciously made:

• to harass, embarrass, or harm another person;
• for personal financial gain by the reporter;
• to obtain custody of a child; or
• for personal benefit for the reporting person in any other private dispute involving a child.

It is a crime to make a false report to either law enforcement or DCF. F.S. 837.05, F.S. 39.205(9). DCF may impose fines or refer the matter to the state attorney for prosecution. A person that makes a false abuse report may also be civilly liable for damages and attorney’s fees.

DCF has internal guidelines that supplement statutory law as to whether an abuse report is a “false report.” Obstacles to proving a false report include proving the reporter knew the report to be false when made and that the reporter’s intended purpose for making the report was to harass, embarrass, or harm another person or to get custody of a child.

There is often a gap between what the target of an abuse report knows to be false and what can be proven to be false. Many abuse investigations are closed without verified findings of abuse. This is not the equivalent of a finding that the report was false. Just because the investigator cannot corroborate an incident does not mean the incident did not occur. If, however, the investigator establishes facts that directly contradict the abuse report, then the abuse report would likely be considered a false report.

Malicious intent can also be difficult to prove. A report is not false just because the reporter has conflicting interests with the person who is being reported. There must be sufficient evidence to overcome a defense that the report, though misdirected or based on misunderstanding, was made in good faith.

We have over 15 years of experience representing parents in dependency cases. Call DeVoe Law Firm to assist you with a request for agency action if you are the victim of a false report to DCF or to defend you against allegations of false reports to DCF.

Michael DeVoe is a divorce attorney in Orlando, Florida practicing contested divorce, uncontested divorce, timesharing, visitation, custody, paternity, child support, injunctions, and other family law cases.

Documentary Evidence

1. Financial Records: Bank statements, tax returns, pay stubs, and expense reports to demonstrate income, assets, or debts.
2. Communication Records: Text messages, emails, and social media posts to show behavior, intent, or interactions between parties.
3. Legal Documents: Prenuptial agreements, custody orders, or divorce decrees.
   Medical or School Records: Evidence of a child’s health, needs, or performance in school.

Testimonial Evidence

1. Party Testimony: Statements made by the parties involved in the case.
2. Witness Testimony: Friends, family members, or professionals (e.g., teachers or counselors) who have relevant information about the situation.
3. Expert Testimony: Opinions from professionals like child psychologists, financial analysts, or social workers.

Physical Evidence

1. Photos relevant to issues in the case
2. Videos relevant to issues in the case
3. Physical items relevant to issues in the case

Demonstrative Evidence

1. Charts
2. Diagrams
3. Timelines
4. Other summaries that visually represent events or data to clarify complex issues

Circumstantial Evidence

1. Indirect evidence that implies a fact but does not directly prove it, such as showing a pattern of behavior.

Affidavits or Declarations

1. Written statements made under oath, often used in custody or restraining order cases.

Other Key Considerations:

1. Relevance: The evidence must relate directly to the issues in the case.
2. Admissibility: Evidence must comply with the rules of evidence, including being obtained legally and not being overly prejudicial or hearsay (unless exceptions apply).
3. Credibility: The court will evaluate the reliability and authenticity of the evidence.

Consulting an attorney can help ensure the proper gathering, presentation, and challenge of evidence in family law cases.

Michael DeVoe is a divorce attorney in Orlando, Florida practicing contested divorce, uncontested divorce, timesharing, visitation, custody, paternity, child support, injunctions, and other family law cases.

While criminal cases require proof “beyond a reasonable doubt,” DCF investigations and judicial cases typically rely on the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, meaning they assess whether it is more likely than not that abuse, neglect, or other issues occurred. DCF can proceed with its investigation or case even if the criminal charges are dropped, if it believes there is sufficient evidence to support the allegations under the lower burden of proof to which they are held.

That is just one example of overlapping cases. A single fact pattern can result in a criminal case, a dependency case; an injunction, a temporary custody case, and/or the re-opening of a divorce or paternity case. Overlapping cases frequently occur when a fact pattern involves allegations of abuse, neglect, or domestic violence. For instance, if a parent is accused of physically harming a child, DCF may initiate a dependency case to ensure the child’s safety and determine whether the parent should retain custody. At the same time, law enforcement may investigate the incident, leading to criminal charges like child abuse or battery. Additionally, the other parent or guardian might seek an injunction for protection against domestic violence to prevent further harm to the child or themselves. The other parent may also re-open a divorce or paternity action to modify the long-term parenting plan that governs child custody and timesharing rights. These cases, though separate, stem from the same set of facts and may involve overlapping evidence and witnesses.

If you are involved in multiple, overlapping cases, consulting an experienced family law attorney would be beneficial to better understand your rights and options. DeVoe Law Firm has helped many clients in these situations with positive results. Give us a call today.

Equal Timesharing Presumption:

Previously, courts were required to consider all the statutory parenting factors when determining a timesharing schedule. The new law still requires this, but introduces a rebuttable presumption that equal timesharing is in the child’s best interest. To counter this presumption, a party must demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that equal timesharing is not in the child’s best interests. F.S. 61.13(2)(c)(1).

Modification of Parenting Plans and Timesharing Schedules:

Previously, a parenting plan and timesharing schedule could only be modified upon a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances. The new law removes the requirement that changes in circumstances must be unanticipated. F.S. 61.13(3). This could make it easier for parents to modify parenting plans based on future changes in life circumstances that are anticipated, but the details of which are not specifically known, such as job transfers, changes in work schedule, or graduation from school, college, or other educational program.

The new law also specifically provides that a relocation by a parent to be closer to the child (within 50 miles) may now be considered a substantial and material change that justifies modification of the timesharing visitation schedule. F.S. 61.13(3).

Conclusion:

Mothers and fathers always received equal consideration under the statutory parenting factors. Essentially both parents started with a blank slate. The new is significant because it requires court to start with a legal presumption that fathers should receive 50/50 equal timesharing unless it can be proven under the parenting factors that this would not be in a child’s best interest.

The new law also makes it a little easier for parents to modify their parenting plan if it is no longer fulfilling their needs due to a substantial change in circumstances that they may or may not have anticipated at the time it was initially ordered.

Michael DeVoe is a divorce attorney in Orlando, Florida practicing contested divorce, uncontested divorce, timesharing, visitation, custody, paternity, child support, injunctions, and other family law cases.

Courts are required to grant parents “shared parental responsibility” unless it would be detrimental to their child.[1] “Shared parental responsibility” means major decisions affecting the child are to be made after the parents confer and reach an agreement.[2]

When parents cannot reach an agreement on a major decision that is not specifically addressed in a court-ordered parenting plan, the dispute should be presented to the trial court for resolution.[3] In resolving the impasse, the lower tribunal must be guided by a consideration of the best interests of the child.[4]

An important threshold consideration is deciding what procedure to use to invoke the court’s jurisdiction to resolve a shared parenting deadlock in an existing parenting plan. Modification of a court-ordered parenting plan is initiated by supplemental petition.[5]  Clarification of a court-ordered parenting plan is initiated by motion. However, the decision to vaccinate is not simply a clarification of the shared parenting directive in the parenting plan. Florida law provides that “a clarification seeks to make a judgment clearer and more precise, as opposed to a modification, which seeks to change the status quo.”[6] Therefore, a parent already subject to a court-ordered parenting plan must file a supplemental petition for modification to resolve an impasse over vaccination and immunization.

In McGrath v. Mountain, 784 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 5^th DCA 2001), an original proceeding in paternity, the parents disagreed on the topic of vaccination and immunization. The father presented testimony as to the benefits of immunization. The mother, a chiropractor who used holistic medicine and homeopathy, opposed immunization on medical and religious grounds. The trial court granted the mother the right to make the decision on vaccination and immunization. The Fifth District determined both parties supplied the trial court with competent, substantial evidence, and therefore it could not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the trial court.

In Winters v. Brown, 51 So. 3d 656 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2011), an original proceeding in paternity, the parents disagreed on the topic of vaccination and immunization. The father testified in favor of traditional medical care, including well baby exams, blood draws, urinalysis, and vaccinations. The mother, a chiropractor and proponent of holistic medicine, testified a tenet of her religious beliefs is that anything introduced into the body to prevent disease or treat illness is against the will of God, including vaccines. The Fourth District observed, “While courts have consistently overturned restrictions on exposing a child to a parent’s religious beliefs and practices, they make an exception where there is a clear, affirmative showing that these religious activities will be harmful to the child.”[7] The Fourth District found notable that the trial court considered and weighed Mother’s religious-based objection in its determination of the child’s best interests when it stated:

“The issue . . . is not one of simply exposing the minor child to the mother’s religious beliefs and practices, it involves an issue that could cause physical and serious harm to the minor child. When parents cannot agree, the court is called upon to break the impasse, and that decision must be made in the best interests of the minor child.”

The Fourth District determined the trial court’s decision was supported by competent, substantial evidence and affirmed the trial court.

In Palmquist v. Potter, FLWSUPP 2901PALM, Case No. 20-DR-386, Second Judicial Circuit in and for Gadsden County (March 6, 2021), an original proceeding in dissolution of marriage, the trial court was tasked with resolving a deadlock between the parents over vaccination and immunization. The Court did not believe either party presented sufficient evidence for a determination of the issue. The Court established a procedure for the parents to attempt to confer and agree on the topic, ordering:

[H]usband and wife will jointly confer with their minor child’s pediatrician, Carlos Hidalgo, M.D., and after listening to his professional opinions and advice regarding the advantages and disadvantages of immunizations, will use their best efforts to reach an agreement on which course to take. The consultation should include a discussion of any underlying health conditions or allergies that could make standard childhood immunizations contraindicated for the minor child. The consultation will occur no later than 30 days from the date of this order. If an agreement is reached using shared responsibility, the wife will file a notice of withdrawal of her motion. If not, the parties will contact the Court’s Judicial Assistant and set an expedited final hearing on the matter.

Note that the above family cases involve disagreement over vaccination and immunization between parents, as opposed to other forums in which parent decision-making may conflict with institutional policy, for example with private religious school[8] or cases involving DCF.[9]

When parents ask the Court to resolve a good faith impasse over vaccination and immunization, it is error for the court to grant the prevailing parent ultimate decision-making authority over all medical care, absent evidence of detriment broader than that discrete issue.[10]

Conclusion

When parents disagree on whether to get their children vaccinated or immunized, they must make a good faith effort to discuss and attempt to reach an agreement. If parents are unable to reach an agreement, then either may file a supplemental petition to have the court determine which parent shall be authorized to make the decision on vaccination. The parents need to provide the court with sufficient evidence to make a decision, such as testimony by a health care professional. A trial court’s determination of the issue is likely to be upheld if based on competent, substantial evidence.

Michael DeVoe is a divorce attorney in Orlando practicing contested divorce, uncontested divorce, timesharing, visitation, custody, paternity, child support, injunctions, and other family law cases.

——————————————–

[1] See F.S. 61.13(2)(B)(2).

[2] F.S. 61.046(17) and Gerenscer v. Mills, 4 So. 3d 22 (Fla. 5^th DCA 2009).

[3] Lane v. Lane, 254 So. 3d 570, 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (citing Dickson v. Dickson, 169 So. 3d 287, 289 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)).

[4] Id. (citing Dickson, 169 So. 3d at 290; Gerencser, 4 So. 3d at 23-24; Sotnick v. Sotnick, 650 So. 2d 157, 159-60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

[5] See e.g. Roque v. Paskow, 812 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Fussell v. Fussell, 778 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); and Gerber v. Gerber, 153 So. 3d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).  See also Fla.Fam.L.R.P. Rule 12.110(h).

[6] See Bustamante v. O’Brien, 286 So. 3d 352, 355 (Fla. 1^st DCA 2019) (citing Roque v. Paskow, 812 So. 2d 500, 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citing Fussell v. Fussell, 778 So. 2d 517, 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) and Dickinson v. Dickinson, 746 So. 2d 1253, 1254 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)).

[7] See Winters v. Brown, 51 So. 3d 656, 657 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2011) Mesa v. Mesa, 652 So. 2d 456, 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (citation omitted).

[8] Flynn v. Estevez, 221 So.3d 1241 (Fla. 1^st DCA 2017).

[9] N.C. v. Dep’t of Ch. and Fam., 290 So. 3d 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). Under certain circumstances, DCF or a designated caregiver can arrange for “ordinary immunizations,” provided certain conditions precedent are satisfied.

[10] See e.g. Gerenscer v. Mills, 4 So. 3d 22 (Fla. 5^th DCA 2009). Cf. Winters, supra.

Help Children Deal with Stress – Bullet Points -Quick Tips

Helping Children Deal with Stress During Corona Virus – Powerpoint

Florida Statute §39.202(7)(a) generally requires DCF to keep records of its cases until the child who is the subject of the record is 30 years of age.  You can submit a request for investigation records at: Public Records Center (mycusthelp.com)

Do not create your account anonymously. You must provide your contact information along with your identification before the DCF records can be released so that DCF can verify you are entitled to receive the records under governing law.

For case manager records, send a written request directed to the following address:

CBC of Central Florida
Attn. Records Custodian
4001 Pelee Street, Suite 100
Orlando, FL 32817

Following a non-jury trial, the trial judge ordered John to pay permanent periodic alimony, child support, attorney’s fees, and a reimbursable lump sum to Heather for alternate housing. It also required him to maintain life insurance with his former wife as the named beneficiary. The court also established a parenting plan.

No Trial Transcript on Appeal

In this case, there wasn’t a trial transcript in the record. Without this, an appellate court can’t properly resolve the underlying factual issues to determine whether the trial court’s judgment is supported by the evidence. A Florida appellate court will review the sufficiency of evidence at trial without a trial transcript and will reverse a dissolution only when the trial court’s error is clear on the face of the order or judgment.

Parenting Plan Requirements

The District Court of Appeals agreed with John’s argument that the trial court’s parenting plan failed to comply with statutory requirements because it didn’t make findings required by § 61.13(2)(b) of the Florida Statutes. Even without a trial transcript, Judge Michael S. Orfinger wrote that it was apparent that the parenting plan was not specific enough to satisfy the law. This section states that a parenting plan must, at a minimum, contain the following:

1. A detailed description of how the parents will share and be responsible for the daily tasks associated with the upbringing of the child;

2. The time-sharing schedule arrangements that specify the time that the minor child will spend with each parent;

3. A designation of which parent will be responsible for:

4. Any and all forms of health care. If the court orders shared parental responsibility over health care decisions, the parenting plan must provide that either parent may consent to mental health treatment for the child;

5. School-related matters, including the address to be used for school-boundary determination and registration;

6. Other activities; and

7. A detailed description of the methods and technologies that the parents will use to communicate with the

Parenting Plan Lacked Specificity

Judge Orfinger said that a trial court’s failure to make these required factual findings was a reversible error even without a transcript. In the case of the Dukes, the final judgment required the couple to share parenting of the child and “divide uncovered medical expenses in proportion to the child support guideline percentages.” The trial judge also ordered that Heather would “have the majority of the responsibility with the parties’ remaining minor child.”

The parenting plan provided that John would have “liberal contact with the minor child upon providing 48 hours’ notice” to Heather, and he would have “no less than 1/3 of the overnights” with their child. As long as Heather didn’t indicate a prior conflict with the child, John was to be allowed to have “two weekends per month and the balance of weekdays for a total of at least 10 calendar nights per month.” Finally, the parenting plan stated that both parents “are to be involved with assisting the child with his school work during the time that the parent is exercising time-sharing.”

Judge Orfinger said that these findings “lack specificity.” Thus, the trial court’s failure to include a more specific parenting plan that complied with the statute in the final judgment was an error. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case to the trial court for a legally sufficient parenting plan in a final judgment. Duke v. Duke, Case No. 5D16-120 (Fla. DCA 5^th February 10, 2017).

Contact Us

As you can see from the case of the Dukes above, the statutory requirements for a parenting plan must be strictly followed. Speak with an attorney about your rights, especially as they concern your children. Call DeVoe Law Firm to schedule a free consultation with an experienced family law attorney.