Lofton v. Arthur

• Decision Date: 09 February 2022
• Docket Number: 1D21-180
• Citation: 332 So.3d 592 (Mem)
• Parties: Thomas LOFTON, Appellant, v. Kaitlyn ARTHUR, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

332 So.3d 592 (Mem)

Thomas LOFTON, Appellant,

v.Kaitlyn ARTHUR, Appellee.

No. 1D21-180

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 9, 2022

Eduardo J. Mejias of AAA Family Law, LLC, Altamonte Springs, for Appellant.

Lawrence J. Marraffino of Lawrence J. Marraffino, P.A., Gainesville, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Rowe, C.J., and Long, J., concur; Kelsey, J., concurs with opinion.

Kelsey, J., concurring.

The biological father of these parties’ very young daughter appeals the trial court's order awarding sole parental responsibility and total timesharing to the mother. The trial court properly admitted into evidence the child's hearsay statements disclosing sexual abuse by her father. See § 90.803(23)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2020) (listing factors for deciding to admit child hearsay). The father has not provided a transcript or statement in lieu of transcript of the evidentiary hearing preceding the court's decision to admit the child hearsay, but the court summarized the evidence and findings of that hearing at the beginning of the trial on the mother's paternity petition. The record reflects the child's statements and actions consistent with sexual abuse, physical evidence suggesting sexual abuse following her time with the father, and the father's troubling statement to the mother that "They [law enforcement and the Department of Children and Families] couldn't catch me then [at the time of the abuse], so what are you going to do about it now?". The record supports the trial court's finding that the father sexually abused the child, which in turn supports the judgment appealed.

I likewise find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's refusal to provide the father a path to reunification. See C.N. v. I.G.C. , 316 So. 3d 287, 288 (Fla. 2021) (holding that "there is no such requirement" that a trial court "must give a parent ‘concrete steps’ to restore lost time-sharing"); Dukes v. Griffin , 230 So. 3d 155, 156–57 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (holding trial court does not err in failing to provide path to reunification when parent's timesharing is suspended).