Norris v. Norris, 2D05-5501.
| Decision Date | 28 April 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D05-5501.,2D05-5501. |
| Citation | 926 So.2d 485 |
| Parties | Alicia C. NORRIS, Appellant, v. David Chadwick NORRIS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Allison M. Perry of Law Office of Allison M. Perry, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Christine M. Jalbert, St. Petersburg, for Appellee.
Alicia Norris appeals the trial court's order enforcing provisions of a marital settlement agreement (MSA). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
At the time of their marriage dissolution in May 2005, the parties agreed on little. Ultimately, they ceded major decisions concerning their children to others. The MSA provided that the parties, together, would make major decisions affecting their children's health, welfare, and education. If they could not agree on medical matters, the MSA provided that the children's pediatrician would make the final decision. The MSA also provided that a specified parenting coordinator would make a final decision, following specified procedures, on other matters in the case of an impasse. The trial court approved the MSA and retained jurisdiction to enforce its terms.
The parties soon disagreed on matters concerning the children's health care and education. Ms. Norris wanted no inoculations. She also wanted the children to attend, at her expense, a private school with a nontraditional curriculum.1 Mr. Norris wanted the children inoculated and wanted them to attend public school. After meeting with both parents, the pediatrician, in a written report, concluded that inoculations were appropriate; the benefits of this regimen outweighed the risks. As for the children's educational environment, the parenting coordinator suggested in a short letter that he preferred a public school. Mr. Norris moved to enforce the MSA's provisions. Ms. Norris moved the trial court to select the school environment "in the best interests of the minor child."2
After a lengthy hearing, the trial court ordered the children to be inoculated within forty-five days. The trial court also ordered the children to be placed in public school. The trial court stayed its order pending our review.
According to Ms. Norris, the trial court improperly interpreted the MSA and based its rulings on insufficient evidence. We review the wording and meaning of the MSA de novo. Spalding v. Spalding, 907 So.2d 1270, 1273 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (). We cannot remake the parties' agreement. The parties entered into the MSA, and a court will honor its terms if the children's best interests are served fully. Id. at 1275; Wendel v. Wendel, 852 So.2d 277, 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
We are unpersuaded by Ms. Norris's argument that the MSA did not authorize the pediatrician to decide the inoculation issue. By its plain language, the MSA provides that medical decisions, absent agreement by the parents, will be made by the pediatrician according to procedures specified in the MSA. The pediatrician met with both parents and issued a written opinion. He determined that inoculations were medically indicated. Ms. Norris did not seek a second opinion nor did she present any evidence that the MSA procedure and the pediatrician's decision were not in the children's best interests.3 The record demonstrates that the trial court properly considered the evidence and the children's best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order as it relates to the inoculations.
Ms. Norris also argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's order that the children be educated in public school. Here, we must agree with Ms. Norris. The MSA provided that, absent the parents' agreement, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Segarra v. Segarra, 3D06-1540.
...v. Gambone, 924 So.2d 952, 955 (Fla. 3d DCA) (citation omitted), review denied No. 06-892, 944 So.2d 344 (Fla.2006); Norris v. Norris, 926 So.2d 485, 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). We review the trial court's factual findings to determine whether they were supported by competent and substantial ev......
-
Sabatini v. Wigh
...private school and half in public school because such a rotating schedule was not in the best interests of the child); Norris v. Norris, 926 So.2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (reversing an order regarding the placement of the parties' children in school because the record did not support the con......
-
C.D. v. Department of Children and Families
...the opinions of the caseworker and guardian ad litem, it cannot base its decision on unsupported assertions. See Norris v. Norris, 926 So.2d 485, 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding that a "conclusory opinion unsupported by a factual basis" was not competent substantial evidence). Such hollow a......
-
N.F. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs.
...guardian ad litem unsupported by identifiable facts insufficient to support order denying motion for reunification); Norris v. Norris, 926 So.2d 485, 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding that parenting coordinator's conclusory opinion unsupported by factual basis was not competent substantial ev......
-
Alternative dispute resolution and settlement
...wanton and willful disregard for the rights, safety, or property of the parties. [§61.125(10), Fla. Stat.] CASES • Norris v. Norris, 926 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). District Court of Appeal would review de novo wording and meaning of marital settlement agreement (MSA) in former husband’s......
-
Discovery and use of experts
...evidence, such witnesses may not serve as a conduit for presenting that inadmissible evidence to the finder of fact. • Norris v. Norris, 926 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Trial court reviews the wording and meaning of parties’ marital settlement agreement de novo wording and meaning of mar......
-
Parental responsibility
...statutory amendment, rotating custody is still disfavored and court must consider best interests of child).] CASES • Norris v. Norris, 926 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). District Court of Appeal would review de novo wording and meaning of marital settlement agreement (MSA) in former husband......