Loading…
31 verbatim requirements from admin. order (unlisted) [unlisted] 61.13(2)1parresporder.
20th Judicial Circuit. Procedural information only; not legal advice.
Verbatim from https://www.ca.cjis20.org/pdf/judge/61.13(2)1parresporder.pdf, harvested 2026-07-25; whitespace normalised only. • Both parents must work to solve any parenting difficulties that may arise. • Florida law also provides: “When a parent who is ordered to pay child support ... fails to pay child support ... , the parent who should have received the child support ... may not refuse to honor the time- -- 1 of 10 -- 2 sharing schedule presently in effect between the parents.” §61.13(4)(a) "When a parent refuses to honor the other parent’s rights under the time-sharing schedule, the parent whose time-sharing rights were violated shall continue to pay any ordered child support ...” §61.13(4)(b). • Likewise, child support must be paid regularly and on time even if the parent owing child support is not in contact with the child because the child has a right to be supported by both parents all of the time. • Therefore, both parents must put aside their differences and interests, and they must both continuously encourage and promote a relationship between the child and the other parent. • 1.3 All factors considered In deciding a parental responsibility order, a parenting plan and a time-sharing schedule, the court must make the child’s best interest the “primary consideration,” §61.13(3), and the court must consider all of the factors in §61.13(3)(a) - (t). • Every child is unique, every family is unique and every time-sharing schedule must be unique. • Separated parents do not have a right to any particular parental responsibility order, parenting plan, or time-sharing schedule. • The child, on the other hand, has a right to “frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents separate,” §61.13(2)(c)1., although the circumstances may require that the child’s contact with a parent must be limited, supervised or ended altogether in order to promote the best interests of the child. • The pleadings and the facts of each case determine what the court must order. • So, under the current statute the “time-sharing” order and the “parental responsibility” order must be two, separate orders. “Parental responsibility” means parenting decision-making. • McDonald, 732 So.2d 505 (Fla. 4 th DCA 1999) The procedural law, that is due process of law, requires that a party must plead specifically for sole parental responsibility or shared responsibililty with ultimate responsibility, if either of these is sought. • F.S. §61.13(2)(c), 2., provides: “The court shall order that the parental responsibility for a minor child be shared by both parents unless the court finds that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child.... • So, if a party wants sole parental responsibility that party must plead for this choice and if a party wants shared parental responsibility with ultimate responsibility that party must plead for this choice but that party does not have to plead and prove detriment to the child. • If a party wants shared parental responsibility, then this is what the court must order in every case unless sole parental or shared with ultimate is pleaded and then a factual basis for one of these choices is proven at trial. • In situations where the parents are unable to agree on the education of their children, the court is required to designate, based on the best interests of the children, one parent to have the ultimate responsibility for making decisions regarding that specific aspect of the children’s welfare. ... • We decline to construe [§61.13(2)] as giving a trial court authority to direct which school the children shall attend; that section only authorizes the court to determine, based on competent substantial evidence, which parent shall make that decision based on the best interests of the children.” Id. at 41. • Of course, before the trial court would have the authority to do that, one of the parties must plead either for (1) sole parenting authority or (2) shared parenting authority with ultimate authority over education decisions to one parent. • So, in a Chapter 61 case parties must plead for the particular parental responsibility order requested at trial, and if shared parental responsibility is ordered in a case, after the judgment is entered the judge has no power to overrule either parent and make a parenting decision. • A finding that the parents do not confer together and share parenting decisions is a detriment to the child sufficient for a sole parental responsibility order, see, e.g., Hunter v. • But parenting decisions must be made for the child constantly. • So, in a case in which the -- 5 of 10 -- 6 parents cannot share parenting decisions, sole parental responsibility or shared parental responsibility with ultimate responsibility to one parent or the other must be ordered so that one of them, at least, has the authority to make a parenting decision. • The father’s petition asks for YYY. [However, because neither parent in this case pled for sole parental responsibility in a petition the court cannot order sole parental responsibility and the court must order shared parental responsibility even if the evidence demonstrates that the parents cannot confer together and share parental responsibility for their child. • So, when the parties plead for shared parental responsibility, or, at least, fail to properly plead for sole parental responsibility, the court must order the parties to share parental responsibility and as part of the shared parental responsibility order the court may grant ultimate responsibility to one parent or the other over some or all aspects of the child’s life. • In this particular family, from the evidence presented the court finds: [(1) The parents do not confer and consult together about major parenting decisions, for example, for example, exchanging the child’s clothes and books, discussing their homework and school assignments; • So, neither parent has unilateral parental responsibility or authority to make a major parenting decision alone and all major parenting decisions must be made jointly.] (1) The parties are ordered to share parental responsibility but the PPP shall have the ultimate responsibility for all aspects of the child’s life in the event that the parties do not agree about any major parenting decision, including but not limited to: • (2) The PPP shall consult and confer with the SSS about all major decisions pertaining to the aspects of the child’s life specified above and all other aspects, so that the parties share parental responsibility, but in the event that the parties are unable to agree on an issue on any aspect of the child’s life, the PPP is hereby granted the ultimate responsibility to make the decisions in all aspects without obtaining the SSS’s consent and without court approval before making the decision. • The best interests of the child require that one parent be able to make prompt decisions for the child if the parties do not agree.] [(1) The PPP is granted sole and exclusive authority to make all parenting decisions for the child concerning but not limited to the child’s (a) education, including change of schools and school choice; • 1.9 Both parents have equal parental rights to information - Access to records and information pertaining to a minor child, including, but not limited to, medical, dental, and school records, may not be denied to either parent. • The court must decide the best interest of the child over the long term. • (4) No parent contact during the other parent’s assigned days is required Under the attached time-sharing schedule, the parents are not required to make any telephone, text, email, Skype, • The court orders that the parents shall follow this plan and time-sharing schedule.
Both parents must work to solve any parenting difficulties that may arise.
Reviewer note: Order PDF sha256: dadcb965b246d8262225ff4071e35a839ad0b17ed02e123d27230bdbd789f17b. Extracted from the order's own text layer.
Judge Bell caps motions and responses at 5 pages for UMC hearings and 12 pages for special-set hearings.
Judge Alijewicz requires every motion for attorney's fees and/or costs to attach a document detailing time records — no records, no fee award.
Judge Corlew bars informal contact: every communication with the Court must be in writing, filed with the Clerk, with copies furnished to all parties — and no calls to the JA to schedule or cancel UMC.