Ocala Divorce Lawyer Blog

I frequently have conversations with prospective clients that go something like this:
Me: what kind of parenting time do you have?
Prospective client: we have shared custody?
Me: you have equal time-sharing?
Prospective client: yes, I have every other weekend.
Me: do you mean you have "shared parental responsibility"?
Prospective client: I'm not sure what I have, except I have every other weekend.

Most people get confused with the terms that our Florida Statutes, Lawyers and Courts use in describing parenting-time and parental responsibility. Here is a quick overview of what they are and what they mean.

For many years, the courts in Florida have embraced the idea that a child of divorced parents should have both parents confer with each and make joint decisions about things like after-school activities, medical care, religious upbringing and a whole host of things that relate to the care and well-being and raising of a child. The court did not find it desirable to have the "custodial" parent making all those important child-rearing decisions without input from the other parent.

So, under Chapter 61, Florida Statutes, the court will typically require that the divorcing/divorced parents have "shared parental responsibility." Sometimes this is also casually referred to as, "joint parental responsibility," This is where the confusion starts. "Joint Parental Responsibility" is not the same as "Joint Custody" or "Shared Custody." Joint custody is where each parent has "custody" of the child for roughly equal lengths of time. There is definitely a trend towards parents having "equal time sharing," but the day is still not here when the court finds 50/50 custody is the starting place for creating a parenting plan. In my practice, I see the trend more and more but only about 60% of the families I work with end up with a workable equal-parenting time arrangement.

So, "shared parental responsibility" or "joint parental responsibility" may sound like "Joint Custody" or "Shared Custody," but they are just not same things. With "shared parental responsibility," both parents keep all their decision-making rights and responsibilities. This also means that the parents must consult and confer with each other on matters concerning the welfare and best interests of the child, especially on major decision. When it comes to medical care or education, these decisions should be made jointly, if possible, after the parents have talked to each other.

Nevertheless, in a typical dissolution of marriage case, there is usually one parent that will have more overnights with the child than the other parent. This was previously referred to as the "primary custodial parent." But when the statutes changed, the legislature removed any term relating to "custody." Now we have 2 parents, children, and parenting-time. There is no custody or primary residence anymore. Yet none of these nomenclature changes in our Statutes take away from the fact that both parents share in the parental rights and responsibilities for the child.

If only life was really like The Brady Bunch. An easily blended family, no exes to complicate matters, minor disturbances that are resolved with a great little moral lesson. In actuality, real life mirrors what was going on behind the scenes of The Brady Bunch show - complicated, passionate, and sometimes stormy. So introducing a new romantic partner after divorce or death is a situation that may not go as smoothly as when Carol and Bob met. It is a decision that warrants a lot of thought.

When you meet someone new, your initial instinct will be to want them to meet your children. Your kids are central, important and and in many ways the main loves of your lives! It may feel odd to keep a relationship separate from them. It may feel sneaky. You may be inclined to resolve this by having your new lover hang out and share in activities with your children as a new "friend". Right? Wrong!!! These reactions are completely understandable but remember, not all are instincts are best followed. Children are no dummies - even children under three will register the different energy present with a platonic vs. non-platonic friend. Furthermore, if there was an extramarital affair involved with this partner your children will be aware consciously or unconsciously regardless of being told explicitly. So don't kid yourself.

A good rule of thumb is wait to introduce your children to your romantic interest until the relationship reaches six months of seriously seeing one another. This guideline protects kids from experiencing the inevitable romantic ups and downs of a new relationships and of having another potential loss. Shielding your children from the early stages of your relationship will require sacrifice on your part; keeping your private life private takes energy, planning and giving up time with your new lover. It is not lying, it is not sneaky, it is privacy - necessary privacy.

Children have very mixed feelings about new relationships. They may feel disloyal to the other parent if they have fun with this new person. They become jealous of sharing your time. They may feel uncomfortable because the sexual energy present with a new relationship is different than that of their married parents. It is not as if kids cannot develop meaningful relationships with girlfriends or boyfriends after divorce -- of course they can -- but the more thoughtful consideration on your part the better the chances for your children to adapt to the new situation.

It is in your child's best interest to wait and see if this looks like a relationship that will have sticking power to withstand the pressures of step parenting and blending families. Once the six month mark has come and gone, you are ready to begin integrating this person in to your family. Inform your ex of all developments. If he/she introduces your children to a new relationship as well, try to be as generous as you can -- keep all complicated feelings to yourself. Your reaction will play a huge role in your kids openness to accept this new person and to experience less conflict over loyalty.

The first kid-new-partner meeting should be activity based. Do something together, a movie, bowling, ice skating -- something that comes with distinct time limits and allows your child to ease in to the meeting with focus on the activity rather than "getting to know" your new lover. Gauge your child's readiness as you decide the frequency of these get-togethers -- keeping in mind that slow is always better in these matters. In terms of sleep overs and joint vacations, especially if other children are involved, take it very slowly. No one has ever complained that they wish they had moved faster on integrating families -- on the contrary, most difficulties come from rushing in with idyllic expectations. Consider yourself very lucky if all goes smoothly as life is not The Brady Bunch.

To talk to us about your case, please visit our website or call the office to schedule your initial consultation. We employ a client based approach, which means that we are selective in the cases we take so that we can be available to our clients. We spend time with you to thoroughly understand the facts of your case, so that we can provide you with a comprehensive and realistic legal evaluation. Our process begins with a half-hour low-cost consultation, all of which is credited back to your account if we accept your case.

This has been cross-posted by permission of the author. Full credit goes to Lisa Spiegel and her insightful and inspiring SoHo Parenting - a Center for parenting and the emotional health of the whole family. To see the original blog post, please visit http://www.sohoparenting.com/blog/2009/11/divorce/

I frequently hear prospective or current clients telling me about how their soon-to-be-ex or former spouse is engaging in disparaging comments about them. I reassure them that taking the "high road," rather than acting "in kind," is the healthiest for the children. Normally, after the emotions of divorce begin to fade, so do the hurtful comments from one parent about the other. However, the parent engaging in the negative behavior may be purposefully encouraging a child to disengage with the other parent and/or denigrate the other parent. Typical methods include: badmouthing the parent, denying visitation rights through geographical relocation or other means, using the psychological threat of detachment, and withdrawing affection and other tactics. There reaches a point when the mere "bad mouthing" turns more serious and becomes Parental Alienation.

Parental Alienation is extremely complex and difficult to assess -- especially initially. Two very good resources may be The Florida Bar article by Michael Bone and Michael Walsh that come out in 1999. The other is Michael Bone's website that deals exclusively with Parental Alienation and the Florida Court system. I have worked with Dr. Bone on some rather difficult PAS cases and he is an absolute expert in his field! It should be specifically noted that in 2000, in Tampa, J. Michael Bone, Ph.D. was directly involved in a "Frye Hearing" as was Richard Gardner, M.D. along with Richard Warshack, Ph.D. The court ruled that PAS was accepted in the professional scientific community and did meet the Frye standard.

In a parental alienation situation when one parent uses tactics of hostility with a child, the dynamics of time-sharing changes dramatically. A child may act-out to prevent time-sharing with the "targeted" parent. A new time-sharing arrangement evaluation may be in the best future interests of the child. This may mean giving the targeted parent the most overnights, to offset the effects of PAS. Enlisting the advice of an expert, someone like Dr. Bone, well versed in this type of damaging behavior, can help a parent with an alienated child evaluate their options and pursue some therapeutic remedies. Equally as important is having legal counsel who has worked in this field and can help discuss various legal remedies.

It is vitally important that these matters are handled with extreme sensitivity, care and professionalism to ensure the best interests of the child. The welfare of children is of utmost importance to the law office of Anne E. Raduns, PA. Frequently, the children are forgotten as parents fight for child custody rights and wage child custody battles. The law office of Anne E. Raduns PA is a staunch advocate of protecting the best interests of children to develop stable, consistent relationships with the adults in their lives whenever possible.

Responsible parents have the right to have a positive, loving relationship with their children. And, children deserve to grow up in a psychologically healthy relationship with their parents. Too often Florida child support and time-sharing rights become the issues former spouses use to vent their anger and hostility. As research suggests, emotional dysfunction for the child can follow him or her far into their future relationships with others. The healthiest children grow up with two loving parents fully present in their lives, even if the parents are divorced. Divorce should not make either person any less of a parent!

If parental alienation has affected you, please call us to discuss your case or visit our website or call the office to schedule your initial consultation. We employ a client based approach, which means that we are selective in the cases we take so that we can be available to our clients. We spend time with you to thoroughly understand the facts of your case, so that we can provide you with a comprehensive and realistic legal evaluation. Our process begins with a half-hour low-cost consultation, all of which is credited back to your account if we accept your case.

As a divorce attorney I see this scenerio play out repeatedly in the context of what religion are the children going to be raised:

A custody battle between parents has erupted in a firestorm over religion and the boundaries of faith and the law. The couple live in the Chicago area and was reported by CBS and the Sun-Times.

It's the story of Joseph Reyes and Rebecca Shapiro; he's Catholic, she's Jewish. They married in 2004. Because Rebecca came from a deeply religious family, Joseph agreed to convert to Judaism but, according to him, he continued to practice Catholicism.

Both said they were open-minded about religion, but the story begins to diverge there. According to Joseph, because Rebecca came from a deeply religious family, her parents wouldn't accept their daughter marrying a gentile. Rebecca denies that, and said that she was OK with his religion as long as he agreed to build a Jewish home.

Their wedding was a traditional Jewish affair. They signed a ketubah, a Hebrew marriage contract, and held the wedding ceremony under a huppa, a ceremonial canopy that symbolizes the creation of a Jewish household.

They broke a glass, danced the hora --these are customary in Jewish weddings, and began their lives together. But the marriage began to go south --the reasons why are not the issue, but the long and the short of it was as Rebecca said, "we just didn't see the world the same. We had different expectations for what two people in love should act like."

But by this time, they'd had a daughter, Ela, born in November 2006. On this front, both parents agree that she is a perfect little angel. But she also became the center of a bitter custody battle over what religion to raise her in. By Rebecca's account, the couple agreed to raise her Jewish, which meant frequent trips to the synagogue, sending Ela to a Jewish preschool, and celebrating Jewish holidays.

Continue reading "What Religion Are We Going to Raise Our Child: A Legal and Religious Dilemma" »

I have blogged here recently on a shift of the court to a more equal time-sharing structure between the divorcing parents. I wanted to tie this in with a blog post on parents behavior during the divorce process. It cannot be stated strongly enough that the divorce process is very hard emotionally for children. Divorce is exceptionally hard and parents can make it worse by their behavior in front of the children. I often implore and remind divorcing parents not to disparage the other parent in front of the children. Remember, the children are one-half of the other parent you are divorcing, both biologically and emotionally. When you disparage the other parent, aren't you also in effect disparaging one-half of the child as well? Children often internalize the criticism that way.

There has been much research on Divorce and Impact on Children, and researchers now view "conflict" - rather than the divorce or parenting-time schedule- as the single most critical determining factor in childrens' post-divorce adjustment. Some of this research spans 30 years or more and follows children from the '70s into adulthood. It has been shown that the children who succeed after divorce, have parents who can communicate effectively and work together as parents. The treat raising the children as something that needs to be done effectively despite their own feels about the other parent. The better the two parents can work together to raise the children, the more successful the children will be in their endeavors. This seems axiomatic but it is very hard for parents, as people with real human emotions, to move past the pain of divorce and focus on the needs of the children.

Additionally, research has further shown that the children's psychological reactions to their parents' divorce vary in degree dependent on three factors: (1) the quality of their relationship with each of their parents before the separation, (2) the intensity and duration of the parental conflict, and (3) the parents' ability to focus on the needs of children in their divorce.

Continue reading "What is the Cost to the Children: Florida Divorce Impact to the Children" »

There has been a huge push by Fathers, Attorneys and the Florida Legislature to put Rotating Custody (or Equal Time-Sharing) on the same level playing field as other types of time-sharing arrangements. Florida Statute 61.13 governs time-sharing and parenting plans established by the court. To understand the issues with rotating custody we have to take a look back to 1997. In 1997, the Florida Legislature enacted section 61.121 which states as follows: "The court may order rotating custody if the court finds that rotating custody will be in the best interest of the child." But courts still found reasons not to give equal time-sharing a chance.

Most courts around Florida believed this to mean that the presumption against rotating custody had not been removed. There were a long line of cases that still found that rotating custody was still disfavored even after the statutory change: Ruffridge v. Ruffridge, 687 So.2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), holding that Florida courts have recognized that rotating child custody is presumptively not in the best interest of the children."); Langford v. Ortiz, 654 So.2d 1237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), holding that Rotating custody ... is presumptively not in the best interest of a child; Caraballo v.. Hernandez, 623 So.2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), adhering to rule that rotating custody is presumptively not in the best interest of the child; Wilking v. Reiford, 582 So.2d 717 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), holding that generally, rotating custody is presumptively not in the best interest of children, but there may be special circumstances which justify rotating physical residence; Bienvenu v. Bienvenu, 380 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), holding that it is well-settled Florida law that split-custody provisions ... are strongly disfavored and ordinarily may not be sustained.

Continue reading "Florida Rotating Custody: Now on an Equal Playing Field" »

This video summarizes some of my previous Blog posts on Florida Father's Rights and Establishing Parenting-Time for Unmarried Parents. It is extremely important to legally establish rights for unmarried parents for the sake of the child. Additionally, once there is a court order, both parents know what their rights and responsibilities are to each and the child.

To talk to us about your case, please visit our website or call the office to schedule your initial consultation. We employ a client based approach, which means that we are selective in the cases we take so that we can be available to our clients. We spend time with you to thoroughly understand the facts of your case, so that we can provide you with a comprehensive and realistic legal evaluation. Our process begins with a half-hour low-cost consultation, all of which is credited back to your account if we accept your case.

CUSTODY DISPUTES: WHEN CUSTODY REALLY ISN'T CUSTODY ANYMORE!

Florida Statute § 61, which governs Family Law, underwent a major revision in October of 2008. There will no longer be a "Primary Residential Parent" and a Secondary Residential Parent." The term "Custodial Parent" is also abolished (done away with). The new designation for both the Mother and Father is "Parent." This is an attempt to equalize the importance of both parents. The old terms understated the role the Secondary Parent played in the life of their children.

The term "Visitation Plan" has also been done away with. Now, the terms "Parenting Plan" and "Time-Sharing" will be used. Again, as attorneys, we understand this change to mean that there is an attempt to encourage courts to craft parenting arrangements allowing both parents a greater role in their children's life. Across the country, states are attempting to make divorces more therapeutic and less traumatizing for the children and the parents. Florida is one of the few states that have enacted the statute abolishing the customary terms "custody" and "visitation." The results of this change remain to be seen.

It is hoped that the statutory changes will cause battling parents in family law cases to reduce their fighting and attempt to cooperate more with each other for the benefit of the children. Time will tell the effects of no longer having "custody" when talking about the children. At the very least, this change will result in a transitional stage to cause individuals to start thinking about their children in a less proprietary fashion.

A potentially more important change is the requirement that judges, attorneys, and parties draft more detailed and robust parenting plans. Parenting plans have become far more detailed involving all issues of the children in their daily lives, in communication between the parents and the children, and other activities concerning the children. Previously, when the Marital Settlement Agreement and/or Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage have been vague in details in terms of children's issues, friction and court litigation were likely to continue at the same rate or at an even greater rate. Consequently, the immediate impact of this statute may be to lessen the amount of micromanaging litigation that goes on while the parties attempt to hammer out the finer details of issues concerning their children and their interactions with children, which were not adequately addressed in the original court proceedings.

Florida has taken a proactive role in moving away from traditional models and moved into a realm where both parents are on equal footing. Immediately, and ultimately, these changes should work for the benefit of Florida's children and their parents.

Here is a provision from the new Parenting Plan and Time-Sharing Law that shows the spirit of this revision:

Continue reading "Florida Custody and Visitation laws" »

I am a dog lover and found an interesting article that I wanted to share on my blog. I have had clients agonizing over which spouse was going to get the dog. It's sad when both want the dog and fight like crazy over Fido (but working in Pet Rescue groups it's even sadder when no one wants the pet after divorce).

But when it comes to visitation schedules for Fido, unfortunately, Florida already has case law that makes "pet custody" issues void and unenforceable. If anyone is interested in reading the case law, it can be found using this citation: Bennett v. Bennett, 655 So.2d 109 (Fla 1st DCA, 1995), holding that Pets were subject to Equitable Distribution (like tangible personal property) and not subject to visitation schedules.

Looks like New Jersey is taking a different route!

Here is the article from the ABA Journal

Legal Bills in Pet Pug Custody Case Top $40K as Judge Mulls 'Subjective Value'

Posted Jul 30, 2009, 01:06 pm CDT
By Martha Neil

When Eric Dare and Doreen Houseman first asked a New Jersey judge to determine which of the two would get custody of their pet pug, Dexter, he treated the toy dog as if it were simply another item of property to be apportioned as part of the break-up of their relationship. He gave Dare the dog, because he already had possession, and awarded Houseman the $1,500 for which Dexter had been purchased.

But after a landmark ruling by a state appeals court determined that he should also have considered Dexter's "subjective value" to the parties, Salem County Superior Judge John Tomasello took a different approach, reports the Philadelphia Inquirer. After hearing additional testimony,Tomasello determined yesterday that the pug is joint property, because the two shared his care while they lived together. He also found, however, that Houseman didn't prove her claim that Dare gave Dexter to her when they split, the Inquirer reports.

That still leaves undecided, however, who should get custody of Dexter. So Tomasello asked lawyers for both sides to submit briefs with their suggestions. So far, Dare and Housman tell the newspaper, each has spent more than $20,000 on legal bills pursuing the pet pug custody case. In their mid-thirties, they work as a police officer and a customer service manager, respectively. The two considered the pug their son, she testified.

Although animal rights groups have been pushing in recent years for more recognition that animals are not simply property, attorney James Carter, who represents Dare, isn't convinced that judges should be diverted from child-custody issues by pet custody issues.

"As far as the legal community goes, many attorneys realize this would be the first step down a slippery slope," he has said.

If you are thinking about divorce and want more information, please visit our website or call the office to schedule your initial consultation. We employ a client based approach, which means that we are selective in the cases we take so that we can be available to our clients. We spend time with you to thoroughly understand the facts of your case, so that we can provide you with a comprehensive and realistic legal evaluation. Our process begins with a half-hour low-cost consultation, all of which is credited back to your account if we accept your case.