P.D.V-G. v. B.A.V-G.
Decision Date | 07 May 2021 |
Docket Number | Case No. 2D20-1178 |
Citation | 320 So.3d 885 |
Parties | P.D.V-G., Appellant, v. B.A.V-G., Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Mira Staggers White of Mira Staggers White, Attorney at Law, P.A., Punta Gorda, for Appellant.
B.A.V-G., pro se.
P.D.V-G., the former husband, appeals a supplemental final judgment for modification, which granted exceptions filed by B.A.V-G., the former wife, to the general magistrate's report and recommendations and denied the former husband's supplemental petition for modification. We reverse because the former husband demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances necessary for modification, as found by the general magistrate.
The parties were married and have two children together, born in June 2010 and January 2012. The parties divorced in August 2015, and the final judgment of dissolution provided for equal timesharing and shared parental responsibility. Around the time of the divorce, the former wife began a romantic relationship with her boyfriend, and the two of them had a child together in November 2016. In August 2018, the former husband filed a supplemental petition for modification of the final judgment, seeking a change in parental responsibility and timesharing based on incidents involving the former wife and her boyfriend, the former wife's harassment of the former husband, and the former wife's interference with the former husband's visitation and shared parental responsibility.
After an evidentiary hearing on August 8, 2019, the general magistrate found that there had been a substantial change in circumstances based on the former wife's behaviors, her relationship with her boyfriend, and the removal of the children from the former wife's "temporary care" during a dependency case that had been opened in 2017. The magistrate also made detailed findings regarding the best interests of the children. Regarding domestic violence, the magistrate found that "[t]here is a significant history of domestic violence and police activity" between the former wife and her boyfriend and that the former wife significantly minimalized her history of domestic violence with her boyfriend. The magistrate also found that the boyfriend, who serves as a parental figure, has a "significant history of substance and alcohol abuse," although noting that he was doing well with his sobriety. The magistrate recommended that the former husband's request for sole parental responsibility be denied but that the former husband should be designated as the ultimate decision-making parent on the issues of health care and education. The magistrate also recommended amending the timesharing to give the former wife visitation on alternating weekends.
The former wife filed exceptions to the magistrate's report and recommendations, which the circuit court granted. In a January 24, 2020, order on the former wife's exceptions, the trial court ruled as follows:
The trial court entered a supplemental final judgment, denying the former husband's supplemental petition for modification.
On appeal, the former husband argues that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard when reviewing the magistrate's report. The former husband argues that the relevant statute, section 61.13, Florida Statutes (2018), does not require a change in circumstances to be permanent. He also argues that the trial court failed to consider that the magistrate relied on the former wife's relationship with her boyfriend in finding a change in circumstances.
This court reviews de novo the trial court's review of a magistrate's report and recommendations. See In re Drummond, 69 So. 3d 1054, 1057 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) () ; Coriat v. Coriat, 306 So. 3d 356, 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) ("Our review of the trial court's review of the general magistrate's Report and Recommendations is de novo." (quoting Lopez v. Dep't of Revenue, 201 So. 3d 119, 123-24 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) ).
Section 61.13(3) provides in relevant part that "[a] determination of parental responsibility, a parenting plan, or a time-sharing schedule may not be modified without a showing of a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances and a determination that the modification is in the best interests of the child." In other words, "[a] party seeking to modify a parenting plan 'must show that (1) circumstances have substantially and materially changed since the original custody determination, (2) the change was not reasonably contemplated by the parties, and (3) the child's best interests justify changing custody.' " Meyers v. Meyers, 295 So. 3d 1207, 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Garcia v. Guiles, 254 So. 3d 637, 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) ).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Figueroa v. Kossiver
...standard of review of a trial court's order issued on a magistrate's report and recommendation is de novo. See P.D.V-G. v. B.A.V-G. , 320 So. 3d 885, 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021). Applying this standard, Former Husband has failed to meet his burden to show reversible error. Accordingly, the trial......
- Allison v. Allison