Ledoux-Nottingham v. Downs

Decision Date16 February 2017
Docket NumberNo. SC15–1037,SC15–1037
Parties Ruth D. LEDOUX–NOTTINGHAM, Petitioner, v. Jennifer Joy DOWNS, etc., Respondents.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Jamie Billotte Moses of Holland & Knight LLP, Orlando, Florida, for Petitioner

Andrew Thomas Windle of The Windle Family Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, Florida, for Respondents

CANADY, J.

In this case we consider whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution requires enforcement of a sister state's judgment ordering grandparent visitation with minor children despite the fact that the right of privacy set forth in article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution protects the right of parents to raise their children free from unwarranted governmental interference. We have for review LeDoux–Nottingham v. Downs , 163 So.3d 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal rejected the argument that a Colorado judgment ordering grandparent visitation is unenforceable as a matter of Florida law and public policy because it violates "childrearing autonomy" guaranteed to parents under article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution. The Fifth District held that under "the Full Faith and Credit Clause [of the United States Constitution], trial courts are required, without discretion, to give recognition to final judgments of another state when applicable," and certified conflict with M.S. v. D.C. , 763 So.2d 1051, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), in which the Fourth District held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not trump Florida's overriding public policy of a guaranteed fundamental right of privacy in childrearing autonomy. LeDoux–Nottingham , 163 So.3d at 563–65. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

For the reasons we explain, we approve the Fifth District's decision in LeDoux–Nottingham and disapprove the Fourth District's decision in M.S. We also disapprove the decision of the Second District in Fazzini v. Davis , 98 So.3d 98 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), to the extent that it holds that Florida's public policy may provide an exception to the full faith and credit due judgments of sister states.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner, Ruth D. LeDoux–Nottingham, and the father of her two minor children were divorced in Colorado in 2010. LeDoux–Nottingham , 163 So.3d at 561. The father died in 2011 in Colorado. Id. Immediately after the funeral, LeDoux–Nottingham and her minor children moved to Florida. Id. Respondents, Jennifer Joy Downs and William Glen Downs (hereinafter "the Grandparents"), timely initiated a proceeding in Colorado seeking visitation with the children. Id. LeDoux–Nottingham then filed a separate action in Florida to register the Colorado final judgment dissolving her marriage and for a judicial determination that the Grandparents have no legal right to timesharing with her minor children. Id. In October 2012, the Colorado court issued a final judgment awarding the Grandparents visitation with the children (hereinafter "the Colorado order"). Id. at 562. LeDoux–Nottingham then amended her petition in Florida and sought to both domesticate and modify the Colorado order, arguing, in relevant part, that under Florida law, enforcement of a grandparent visitation order is unconstitutional and against public policy. Id. After a trial, the Florida court entered a final order which registered and domesticated the Colorado order, stated that it was enforceable in Florida, and denied LeDoux–Nottingham's request for modification. Id.

LeDoux–Nottingham appealed the Florida trial court's order, arguing that the Colorado order was unenforceable as a matter of Florida law and public policy because it violates childrearing autonomy guaranteed to parents under article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution, which states that "[e]very natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life except as otherwise provided herein." Id. (alteration in original). In rejecting LeDoux–Nottingham's argument, the Fifth District relied on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Baker v. General Motors Corp. , 522 U.S. 222, 118 S.Ct. 657, 139 L.Ed.2d 580 (1998), which the district court concluded "makes clear that the public policy of one state has no effect on whether the state must give full faith and credit to judgments, rather than law, of another state," and held that under "the Full Faith and Credit Clause, trial courts are required, without discretion, to give recognition to final judgments of another state when applicable." 163 So.3d at 563. The district court concluded that the trial court properly enforced the Colorado order granting the Grandparents visitation, reasoning as follows:

Since the Colorado order was a final judgment and emanated from a "child custody proceeding" within the meaning of section 61.503(4), Florida Statutes (2013),[N.2] it became enforceable in Florida pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause as well as section 61.526, Florida Statutes. See [Baker , 522 U.S. at 232–33, 118 S.Ct. 657];§ 61.526(1), Fla. Stat. (2013) ("A court of this state shall recognize and enforce a child custody determination of a court of another state if the latter court exercised jurisdiction in substantial conformity with this part or the determination was made under factual circumstances meeting the jurisdictional standards of this part and the determination has not been modified in accordance with this part.").
[N.2] § 61.504(4), Fla. Stat. (2013) (defining "child custody proceeding" as "a proceeding in which legal custody, physical custody, residential care, or visitation with respect to a child is an issue").

Id.

The Fifth District also affirmed the trial court's decision that modification of the Colorado order was not warranted because there had not been a subsequent substantial and material change in circumstances. Id. at 564. And the Fifth District certified conflict with M.S. , in which the Fourth District reversed an order granting a motion for visitation filed by grandparents based on a Connecticut divorce and custody decree that provided for grandparent visitation. The Fourth District in M.S. stated:

We have considered the argument that the Connecticut [grandparent] visitation order is entitled to full faith and credit. However, a visitation provision such as this, while entitled to our respect on comity principles, does not prevent the application of an overriding provision of our law, applying a paramount public policy. As our supreme court has recognized, few policies in the state are more paramount than enforcement of an exercise of a recognized constitutional right to privacy.

763 So.2d at 1055 (citations omitted).

II. ANALYSIS

In the analysis that follows, we first consider whether final judgments entered by sister states relating to child custody and visitation are entitled to full faith and credit or subject to the principles of comity. Because we conclude that such judgments are entitled to full faith and credit, we then consider whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause mandates enforcement of the Colorado order in Florida even if such enforcement would violate LeDoux–Nottingham's right of privacy under the Florida Constitution or whether there is a public policy exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. We conclude that there is no public policy exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the Colorado order is enforceable in Florida.

A. Comity vs. the Full Faith and Credit Clause

Because the Fourth District in M.S. held that a grandparent visitation order from a sister state was entitled to "respect on comity principles," 763 So.2d at 1055, while the Fifth District below held that under "the Full Faith and Credit Clause, trial courts are required, without discretion, to give recognition to final judgments of another state when applicable," 163 So.3d at 563, we first consider whether child custody and visitation orders entered by a sister state are entitled to full faith and credit or merely subject to the principles of comity.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution provides that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." Art. IV, § 1, U.S. Const. The clause was intended to replace the earlier rule of comity with a constitutional duty of states to honor the laws and judgments of sister states. Estin v. Estin , 334 U.S. 541, 546, 68 S.Ct. 1213, 92 L.Ed. 1561 (1948) (noting that the Full Faith and Credit Clause "substituted a command for the earlier principles of comity and thus basically altered the status of the States as independent sovereigns"). The clause contains implementing language that gives Congress the power "by general Laws [to] prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." Art. IV, § 1, U.S. Const. Congress adopted such a law with regard to custody determinations when it enacted the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980 (PKPA). Pub. L. 96–611, §§ 6–10, 96 Stat. 3568 (1980).

The PKPA requires "every State [to] enforce according to its terms ... any custody determination or visitation determination made consistently with the provisions of this section[1 ] by a court of another State." 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(a) (2012). In Thompson v. Thompson , 484 U.S. 174, 183, 108 S.Ct. 513, 98 L.Ed.2d 512 (1988), the United States Supreme Court explained that "Congress' chief aim in enacting the PKPA was to extend the requirements of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to custody determinations" and that "the PKPA is a mandate directed to state courts to respect the custody decrees of sister States." Thus, there is no doubt that custody determinations of a sister state are entitled to full faith and credit.

LeDoux–Nottingham acknowledges that custody determinations are entitled to full faith and credit under the PKPA and she does not contend that the Colorado court did not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • J.D. v. D.P.D.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • August 27, 2021
    ...in which "a ... grandparent ... claims a right to ... visitation of a child." 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(b)(2) ; see also Ledoux-Nottingham v. Downs, 210 So. 3d 1217, 1221 (Fla. 2017) (holding that the PKPA required Florida courts to extend full faith and credit to Colorado judgment granting grandpa......
  • Ebf Partners, LLC v. Novabella, Inc.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • February 28, 2018
    ...logic or consistency of the decision, or the validity of the legal principles on which the judgment is based"); Ledoux–Nottingham v. Downs , 210 So.3d 1217, 1222–23 (Fla. 2017) (stating that the United States Supreme Court "continues to reject any notion that a state may elevate its own pub......
  • Jones v. Grace Healthcare
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 30, 2021
    ...on an undisputed characterization of medical necessity that directly conflicts with clear federal law. Cf. Ledoux-Nottingham v. Downs , 210 So. 3d 1217, 1221 (Fla. 2017) (observing that when federal law conflicts with Florida law, federal law controls under the Supremacy Clause).Simply put,......
  • J.D. v. D.P.D.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • August 27, 2021
    ...1101 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (rev'd on other grounds, 208 So.3d 1102 (Ala. 2015), rev'd, in turn, 577 U.S. 404 (2016)); see also Ledoux-Nottingham, 210 So.3d at 1223 (holding Florida court was required to enforce Colorado grandparent-visitation award despite Florida's own constitutional prohi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Family law proceedings and grounds
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Family Law and Practice - Volume 1
    • April 30, 2022
    ...to court-ordered visitation. Nevertheless, Florida Courts recognize valid judgments from sister courts. In Ledoux-Nottingham v. Downs , 210 So. 3d 1217, 1223 (Fla. 2017), the Florida Supreme Court noted that the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires each state to recognize and give effect t......
  • Parental responsibility
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Family Law and Practice - Volume 1
    • April 30, 2022
    ...752.01, Florida Statutes, along with the mediation requirements under section 752.015, Florida Statutes. In Ledoux-Nottingham v. Downs , 210 So. 3d 1217 (Fla. 2017), the Florida Supreme Court approving the Fifth DCA held that a Colorado order awarding grandparents child visitation was entit......
  • Attorneys' fees and costs
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Family Law and Practice - Volume 1
    • April 30, 2022
    ...party attorneys’ fees. [§61.535(1), Fla. Stat.] • Ledoux-Nottingham v. Downs , 163 So. 3d 560, 564 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015), approved, 210 So. 3d 1217 (Fla. 2017). Appellate court remanded for trial court to address grandparents’ entitlement to attorneys’ fees and court costs. Grandparents argue......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT