Pagliaro v. Pagliaro, 4D18-702
Decision Date | 06 February 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 4D18-702,4D18-702 |
Citation | 264 So.3d 196 |
Parties | Michele PAGLIARO, Appellant, v. Brent PAGLIARO, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Christopher R. Jette of Goldstein & Jette, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
The Former Wife appeals the circuit court's order ratifying the terms and provisions of a mediation agreement. She argues the court erred when it ratified the agreement without allowing her to present testimony and without considering the best interest of the minor child. We agree with both arguments and reverse.
At mediation, the Former Wife and the Former Husband signed an agreement that specifically contemplated additional negotiations and stated:
The Respondent/Husband's counsel, shall prepare a more formalized global Marital Settlement Agreement and Parenting Plan which outlines the terms and conditions set forth herein. Said Agreements shall be prepared within twenty days of the date of this Agreement. In the event the parties' [sic] are unable or unwilling to execute a more formalized Marital Settlement Agreement and Parenting Plan, this Agreement shall be incorporated into, ratified and approved by the Court and made a part of the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage.
Later, the Former Wife moved to set aside the mediation agreement. The Former Wife stated that during mediation, the parties agreed that the Minor would reside in Pennsylvania with the Former Wife and with the Former Husband for one week during Christmas break and one week during the summer.
Despite attempts to develop a more detailed timesharing plan, the Former Wife and Former Husband were unable to agree. During this time, the Former Wife discovered that the Former Husband allegedly committed "serious and violent acts against his current significant other," resulting in his arrest and criminal charges of domestic battery by strangulation, false imprisonment, and tampering in a life capital felony proceeding. She argued any unsupervised visitation agreed-to in mediation was no longer in the Minor's best interest.
At the hearing on the Former Wife's motion, the court stated that the allegations against the Former Husband were hearsay and that "criminal charges are just allegations." After being informed that an alleged victim was in the courtroom and prepared to testify about one of the alleged criminal incidents, the court questioned the relevancy of the criminal charges to the Minor. The court then denied the motion:
The court issued a written order denying the Former Wife's motion and ratifying the mediation agreement.
The Former Wife raises two arguments on appeal. First, she argues the court erred when it denied her motion and ratified the mediation agreement without allowing her, or her witness, the opportunity to testify. Second, she argues the court erred when it ratified the mediation agreement, including a timesharing plan for the Minor, without considering the best interests of the Minor.
We first consider the Former Wife's argument that she was denied procedural due process. Procedural due process consists of notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Keys Citizens For Responsible Gov't, Inc. v. Fla. Keys Aqueduct Auth. , 795 So.2d 940, 948 (Fla. 2001) ; Ferris v. Winn , 242 So.3d 509, 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (citation omitted); see also Cole v. Cole , 159 So.3d 124, 125–26 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) .
For example, the Third District held that a court erred when it ended a proceeding at the end of one party's presentation of evidence because of time constraints. In Munoz v. Salgado , 253 So.3d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), a mother moved to modify a timesharing agreement. Id. at 88. The court held a hearing and allowed the mother to testify and call a witness. Id. But, before the father could introduce evidence, the court ended the hearing because it had exceeded the allotted time. Id. The Third District held this violated the father's procedural due process rights and reversed. Id.
Similarly, in Douglas v. Johnson , 65 So.3d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), the father moved for an emergency order alleging the mother and grandmother impermissibly moved the child from Florida to Tennessee. Id. at 606. The court held a hearing on the father's motion and heard testimony from him and his other witnesses. Id. The court then heard legal argument without allowing the mother to present evidence. Id. The Second District held that the court abused its discretion when it prevented the mother from presenting evidence or witnesses at the hearing. Id. at 607.
Here, because the court refused the Former Wife's request to testify and to present the testimony of another witness, we reverse for a new hearing at which the court affords the Former Wife the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses.
Next, we address the Former Wife's argument that the court erred when it failed to consider the best interests of the Minor.
While parents may agree about child custody, "a trial court's responsibility to the child cannot be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Benedict v. Benedict
...error,1 and we reverse."Procedural due process consists of notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard." Pagliaro v. Pagliaro , 264 So. 3d 196, 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). "[T]he right to be heard at an evidentiary hearing includes more than simply being allowed to be present and to speak.......
-
Antunes v. Oliveira
...not enforcing this provision upon a determination that such sanction was not in the child's best interests. See Pagliaro v. Pagliaro, 264 So. 3d 196, 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (reiterating that " ‘a trial court's responsibility to the child cannot be abdicated to any parent, or any expert,’ a......
-
Defaults and uncontested hearings
...860 So.2d 1069, 1071 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) and Feliciano v. Feliciano , 674 So.2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).] CASES • Pagliaro v. Pagliaro , 264 So. 3d 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). Appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of wife’s motion to set aside a mediation agreement, and specificall......
-
Parental responsibility
...child support and visitation, trial court was required to admit evidence relevant to best interests of children); Pagliaro v. Pagliaro , 264 So.3d 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (while parents may agree on custody, the court is not bound by the agreeement, the court must consider the best interest......
-
Alternative dispute resolution and settlement
...and parental responsibility issues, trial court was required to consider the best interests of the child. [ Pagliaro v. Pagliaro , 264 So. 3d 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).] In Macar v. Macar, 803 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 2001), the Supreme Court made no distinction as to whether the motion to set aside ......