Munoz v. Munoz, Case No. 2D16–1604
Decision Date | 03 February 2017 |
Docket Number | Case No. 2D16–1604 |
Citation | 210 So.3d 227 |
Parties | Airol MUNOZ, Appellant, v. Paulina MUNOZ, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Lawrence J. Hodz of Cortes Hodz Family Law & Mediation, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Jessica C. Tien of Tien Law Group, Tampa, for Appellee.
Airol Munoz, the former husband, appeals the circuit court's orders modifying timesharing and establishing child support and arrears concerning his minor children, A.M. and C.M. Mr. Munoz came before the circuit court on his supplemental petition to modify a default final judgment entered on January 8, 2008, which had awarded Paulina Munoz, his former wife, sole parental responsibility and timesharing with A.M. and C.M.1 In response to the modification petition, Ms. Munoz filed a petition to establish child support and retroactive child support against Mr. Munoz. A trial was held on both petitions before the circuit court on February 5, 2016. The court entered its orders on March 2, 2016, and Mr. Munoz timely appealed.
Although the absence of a transcript from the trial prevents us from addressing many of the issues Mr. Munoz raises on appeal, because there are errors that are plain on the face of the order modifying timesharing, we are compelled to reverse those portions of the circuit court's order. See Ivanovich v. Valladarez , 190 So.3d 1144, 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (citing Soto v. Soto , 974 So.2d 403, 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)). The progressive, three-phase daytime timesharing schedule the circuit court fashioned to reintegrate Mr. Munoz in his daughters' lives improperly vests the decision-making authority as to when Mr. Munoz can proceed into the second and third phases solely with a therapist. The order also gives Ms. Munoz sole discretion, at any time, to choose to replace this therapist, which was also an improper delegation of the court's authority. Third, and perhaps most troubling, the order fails to resolve whether Mr. Munoz will ever be entitled to overnight, unrestricted timesharing with his minor children, if or when he completes the third phase of this schedule. Taken together, these errors, which are clear from the face of the order, constituted reversible error.
As we explained in Grigsby v. Grigsby , 39 So.3d 453, 456–57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) :
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mallick v. Mallick
...T.D. v. K.F., 283 So. 3d 943, 946 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019), Curiale v. Curiale, 220 So. 3d 554, 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), Munoz v. Munoz, 210 So. 3d 227, 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), Slaton v. Slaton, 195 So. 3d 1192, 1194 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), Niekamp v. Niekamp, 173 So. 3d 1106, 1108 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015),......
-
C.N. v. I.G.C.
...it to justify requiring "concrete steps" even in orders that finally settled the parties’ visitation rights. See e.g. Munoz v. Munoz , 210 So. 3d 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ; Tzynder v. Edelsburg , 184 So. 3d 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ; Witt-Bahls v. Bahls , 193 So. 3d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). But ......
-
Final judgment; rehearing; motions related to judgment
...father; conditions must be established in order with which father must comply in order to restore his rights).] CASES • Munoz v. Munoz , 210 So. 3d 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). In modification proceeding, former husband’s court-ordered, progressive, three-phase, daytime time-sharing schedule, de......
-
Parental responsibility
...timesharing on modification of preexisting parenting plan. [ C.N. v. I.G.C. , 316 So.3d 287 (Fla. 2021) (abrogating Munoz v. Munoz , 210 So. 3d 227, Tzynder v. Edelsburg , 184 So. 3d 583, and Witt-Bahls v. Bahls , 193 So. 3d 35).] The C.N. Court declined to address the conflict involving in......
-
Temporary relief
...forth specific steps necessary to reestablish timesharing upon modification of a preexisting parenting plan, abrogating Munoz v. Munoz , 210 So. 3d 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); Tzynder v. Edelsburg , 184 So. 3d 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Witt-Bahls v. Bahls , 193 So. 3d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). §13:......