Grigsby v. Grigsby, 2D09-5255.
| Decision Date | 07 July 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D09-5255.,2D09-5255. |
| Citation | 39 So.3d 453 |
| Parties | Lisa GRIGSBY, Appellant,v.Lonnie GRIGSBY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Marcia J. Lockwood of The Family Law Clinic, Sarasota; and Susan J. Silverman, Sarasota, for Appellant.
Leslie Telford of Leslie Telford, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellee.
Lisa Grigsby appeals from the nonfinal order awarding sole parental responsibility for her four minor children to their father, Lonnie Grigsby, and “temporarily completely” suspending her time-sharing with the children. We have carefully reviewed the troubling record in this case in light of the six issues raised by the Mother. Based on this review, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the Father sole parental responsibility and in temporarily suspending the Mother's time-sharing with the children. However, we do find that the trial court erred by not including in its order the specific conditions the Mother must satisfy in order to reestablish time-sharing with her children and that it abused its discretion by delegating to the Father the determination of whether and when time-sharing can be reestablished. Therefore, on these two narrow issues, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The Mother and Father were married in 1991, and they separated in 2003. In 2004 the Mother filed a petition for injunction for protection against domestic violence on behalf of the parties' four minor children, alleging that the Father was using inappropriate corporal punishment to discipline the children. While the circuit court granted this petition and entered the injunction, it nevertheless also permitted the Father to have regular unsupervised visitation with the children. The Father exercised this visitation, apparently without incident, and the Mother subsequently had the injunction dissolved in July 2006.
For reasons not apparent from the record, shortly after having the injunction dissolved the Mother began a campaign to alienate the Father from the children. Then, in December 2006, she filed her petition for dissolution of marriage. In that petition, the Mother sought sole parental responsibility for the children. The Father filed a counterpetition in which he sought sole parental responsibility for the children. In his counterpetition, the Father also requested that the court “determine an appropriate parenting schedule and contact schedule which provides the children with meaningful access to their mother taking into consideration the mother's active attempts to alienate the minor children from their father.” The Father also requested that the court “determine if temporary measures are necessary to normalize the relationship between the father and the children and to enter that temporary relief to normalize those relationships.”
The trial court bifurcated the dissolution proceedings and addressed the parental responsibility and time-sharing issues during a four-day evidentiary hearing. At that hearing, the evidence established that after the injunction was dissolved the Mother refused to encourage the children to participate in scheduled time-sharing, and she refused to allow the Father to see the children at other times. When the Father attended the children's school functions and sports activities, the Mother threatened to obtain a new injunction against him. After the petition for dissolution was filed, the Mother refused to comply with the court's temporary order regarding time-sharing. Instead, she reported to the Department of Children & Family Services that the Father was sexually abusing the children. The Department determined this report to be unfounded, but the Mother's actions succeeded in preventing the Father from seeing the children for a period of time. Along similar lines, the evidence showed that the Mother filed various police reports alleging criminal activity by the Father, including a report that the Father should be investigated in connection with a high-profile case involving the disappearance of a young girl from her home in Northport. All of the complaints underlying these police reports were determined to be unfounded.
In addition, during the pendency of the dissolution case, the Mother refused to cooperate with the parenting coordinator appointed by the court. She also filed complaints with the state against the licenses of the psychologists and social workers appointed by the court to assist it in determining the parental responsibility and time-sharing issues, contending that these professionals were biased and acting unethically. These complaints were also determined to be unfounded.
After hearing four days of testimony and observing the demeanors of both parents, the trial court found that the Mother had “actively interfered with the love and emotional ties that previously existed between the Father and the children.” The court characterized the Mother's actions as the worst case of parental alienation that it had ever seen. Based on the Mother's egregious behavior, the trial court assigned sole parental responsibility for all four children to the Father and completely suspended the Mother's time-sharing with the children. While the trial court designated the suspension of the Mother's time-sharing as temporary, the court's order did not set forth what steps the Mother could take to reestablish time-sharing with the children. Instead, the court ordered that the Father, after consultation with “professionals,” could determine when the Mother's time-sharing would be reinstated.
In this appeal, the Mother argues that the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mallick v. Mallick
...or her child, it must specify steps for the parent to take in order to regain meaningful time-sharing. See, e.g., Grigsby v. Grigsby, 39 So. 3d 453, 456–57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ; Lightsey v. Davis, 267 So. 3d 12, 15 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) ; Solomon v. Solomon, 251 So. 3d 244, 245–46 (Fla. 3d DCA......
-
Meyers v. Meyers
...reached here by the trial court in awarding sole parental responsibility, much less ultimate responsibility. See Grigsby v. Grigsby, 39 So. 3d 453, 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (concluding there was sufficient evidence that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to minor children and......
-
Witt-Bahls v. Bahls
...steps a parent must take to reestablish time-sharing, thus depriving the parent of that key, is deficient....” Grigsby v. Grigsby, 39 So.3d 453, 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ; see also Davis v. Lopez–Davis, 162 So.3d 19, 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (quoting Grigsby in holding judgment was deficient in......
-
Davis v. Lopez-Davis, 4D12–729.
...in that it does not set forth the steps the husband must take to establish timesharing with the child. In Grigsby v. Grigsby, 39 So.3d 453, 456–57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), the Second District stated that when the court exercises its discretion to restrict or deny visitation,it must clearly set f......
-
Understanding The Role Of A Parenting Plan In A Florida Divorce Proceeding
...courts have rejected parenting plans that improperly delegate decision making authority to a third party. In Grigsby v. Grigsby, 39 So. 3d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), the appellate court found it improper to allow a father, in consultation with third party professionals, to decide when or wheth......
-
Final judgment; rehearing; motions related to judgment
...hearing to monitor compliance. [In Mallick v. Mallick , 311 So.3d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (the court receded from Grigsby v. Grigsby , 39 So. 3d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) and found that the failure to specify steps that a parent must take in order to regain meaningful timesharing is not legal e......
-
Temporary relief
...decision making and/or time-sharing and a reasonable time frame, with a review hearing to case manage compliance. [ Grigsby v. Grigsby , 39 So. 3d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (no abuse in awarding sole parental responsibility of four minor children to father or in temporarily suspending mother’s......
-
Parental responsibility
...structural interventions that effectively designate the custody to one of the parents or neither. Page 312. CASES • Grigsby v. Grigsby , 39 So. 3d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Trial court did not abuse its discretion in dissolution of marriage action by awarding sole parental responsibility for ......