Loading…
20 verbatim requirements from document (unlisted) [unlisted] NewSharedPlan1.
20th Judicial Circuit. Procedural information only; not legal advice.
Verbatim from https://www.ca.cjis20.org/pdf/NewSharedPlan1.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-sharing schedule presently in effect between the parents.” §61.13(4)(a) -- 1 of 7 -- 2 "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. • 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” and the court must consider all of the factors in §61.13(3). • The court must also consider the “expressed desires” of the parents in these decisions, but the interests of the parents are not a consideration, §61.13(2)(c)2.,a. • The parents do not have a right to any particular parental responsibility order, parenting plan, or time-sharing schedule, while the child has a right to “frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents separate.” §61.13(2)(c)1. • Therefore, since 1982 and under the current statute the “time-sharing” order and the “parental responsibility” order must be two, separate orders. • Regarding the parental responsibility order under §61.13(2) the court can order (1) the parents must share parental responsibility for all decisions; or (2) the parents must share parental responsibility and one parent may have ultimate responsibility over some or all aspects of the child’s life, see, e.g.,Watt v Watt, 966 So.2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); • Further, the goal of every litigation is to end the dispute, and in a Chapter 61 proceeding the court does not end the dispute if it is open to endlessly hear and overrule one parent or the other whenever they do not agree on decisions they were ordered to “share.” • Further, a parent seeking sole parental responsibility over some aspect or all aspects of the child’s life must plead for this in a petition. [In this case, both parents’s petitions plead for shared parental responsibility and neither parent’s petition asks for sole parental responsibility. ] • However, because neither parent 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 parenting decisions; • (1) The parties are ordered to share parental responsibility but the PPP shall have the ultimate responsibility for the child’s (a) education, including change of schools and school choice, (b) health care, including health insurance provider, dental, orthodontic, optical and mental health care, elective and emergency, (c) the choice of the employment day care provider and whether the child will be taken to a day care provider on any day, (d) extracurricular activities including sports, religious training, and summer camps and summer activities even though these might encroach on the child’s attached time-sharing schedule with the mother or the father, and (e) whether the child will participate in religious ceremonies, services, training and education during portions of the time-sharing schedule when the child is with him. • The SSS shall have the authority to consent to emergency medical care when the child is with the SSS. • (2) The PPP shall consult and confer with the SSS about all important decisions pertaining to the aspects of the child’s life specified above, so that the parties share parental responsibility, but in the event that the parties are unable to agree on an issue on these aspects of the child’s life, the PPP is hereby granted the ultimate responsibility to make the decisions in these 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. • 1.6 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. • The court orders that the parents shall follow this plan and time-sharing schedule. ********************** [Alternative]
Both parents must work to solve any parenting difficulties that may arise.
Reviewer note: Order PDF sha256: 76cc43505f50f8b9277f33a9628be8341851c6a65b3fc054d2104c958a525839. 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.