LAROCKA v. LAROCKA, 5D09-1117.
| Decision Date | 10 September 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D09-1117.,5D09-1117. |
| Citation | 43 So.3d 911 |
| Parties | Kristin LAROCKA, Appellant, v. John LAROCKA, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
43 So.3d 911
Kristin LAROCKA, Appellant,
v.
John LAROCKA, Appellee.
No. 5D09-1117.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
September 10, 2010.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
Sharon Lee Stedman, Orlando, for Appellant.
John Larocka, Celebration, pro se.
SAWAYA, J.
Kristin Larocka (hereinafter Mother) appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, claiming that the trial court erred in: 1) delegating its authority to a third party to establish visitation of the minor child with Mother; and 2) failing to set forth a contact schedule for Mother and the minor child in the final judgment. We agree.
In the dissolution proceedings, John Larocka (hereinafter Father) and Mother originally had counsel, but terminated their employment and attended the final hearing pro se. There were two children born of their marriage—a son who is currently eighteen years or older and a daughter under the age of eighteen. The final judgment specifically provides that Father is to be the primary residential parent of the daughter and that Mother have open and reasonable contact as set forth in the judgment. However, the final judgment provides that contact and visitation between Mother and her daughter will be established by a counselor.
Mother argues that the trial court may not delegate its statutory authority to determine visitation to third parties. The courts have consistently agreed with this principle. See Lovell v. Lovell, 14 So.3d 1111, 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) ("[R]eversal is required because the trial court cannot delegate its authority to another person to rule on the visitation details. There is no legal basis for allowing the children's therapist to make the final call on when the new wife can be allowed to be in the presence of the children. This determination is solely within the province of a court of law."); Shugar v. Shugar, 924 So.2d 941, 942 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) ("Courts may not delegate their statutory authority to determine visitation to [guardians ad litem], attorneys, or experts." (citing McAlister v. Shaver, 633 So.2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Wattles v. Wattles, 631 So.2d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Roski v. Roski, 730 So.2d 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999))).
There is no transcript of the trial proceedings and the record before us is rather sparse. The lack of a transcript or an incomplete record would usually hamper this court's ability to conduct a meaningful and thorough review of the issues
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Engel v. Engel
...a third-party absolute, unconditional discretion over the noncustodial parent's right of contact. See, e.g., Larocka v. Larocka, 43 So.3d 911, 912–13 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2010) (improper delegation where court provided that “contact and visitation between Mother and her daughter will be establi......
-
In re Kamil
...because it is a judicial function." Walters v. Walters, 12 Neb.App. 340, 673 N.W.2d 585, 592 (2004) ; see also Larocka v. Larocka, 43 So. 3d 911, 912 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010) (noting that Florida appellate courts "have consistently agreed with th[e] principle" that a "trial court may not ......
-
Stephens v. Stephens
...authorizing a third party to alter the visitation scheduled in any way she deemed reasonable and necessary); Larocka v. Larocka, 43 So.3d 911, 912–13 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2010) (holding it is the responsibility of the court to establish the visitation schedule between the mother and child and m......
-
Stephens v. Stephens
...order authorizing a third party to alter the visitation scheduled in any way she deemed reasonable and necessary); Larocka v. Larocka, 43 So.3d 911, 912-13 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010) (holding it is the responsibility of the court to establish the visitation schedule between the mother and c......
-
Understanding Decision Making Authority Under A Florida Parenting Plan
...decision making authority under a parenting plan to a therapist, guardian ad litem and parenting coordinator. In Larocka v. Larocka, 43 So. 3d 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), the Fifth District held that it was the responsibility of the trial court, not a counselor, to determine a parent's timesha......
-
Emergencies and case management conference
...the appellate court determined that the trial court did not err in allowing the psychotherapist to testify. • Larocka v. Larocka , 43 So.3d 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). The trial court cannot delegate to any third party including a counselor its statutory authority to establish a contact and vi......