The “Detriment-to-the-child” standard is clearly at odds with Florida`s co-parenting law…. Moreover, it seems to upset the best-interest standard. It could be clearly shown that a change in custody would be in the best interests of the child and thus help the child without providing evidence that the current situation would harm the child. Contact LaFrance Law to hire a representative for your change in time allocation. Perez`s test A similar “damages claim” was the law in Perez in the third arrondissement. The case concerned a 1995 divorce, which gave the former wife primary responsibility for the couple`s three minor children. The marital transaction agreement provided that “neither [p]arty may remove the permanent residence of minor children in Dade, Broward or Palm Beach Countys, Florida, without the express written permission of the other [p]arty or in the absence of an order from a competent court.” Later, the ex-wife wanted to move with the three children to Park City, Utah. The former husband agreed and the couple implemented an agreement entitled “Addendum and Modification to the Separation and Marital Settlement Agreement”, approved by the court and accepted as a court order. While a new house was built in Park City, however, the former husband changed his mind and asked the court to block the move. The court ordered that two of the three children, the two boys, be changed to the former husband and allow the former wife to move with the underage girl to Park City. On appeal, the third arrondissement partially annulled the return of the boys minors as the head guard. On the day of your hearing, you must provide evidence and testimony that supports the reasons given in your application for changing the parenting plan. Your testimony and statements will not suffice.
You should plan to bring witnesses or have evidence available to support your reasons for requesting a change. A lawyer can help you identify and call witnesses and request evidence. Some of the witnesses and evidence you might want to consider are: The fifth district`s verdict was at odds with the Premier District`s decision at Cooper v. Gress, 854 So. 2d to 262. The Florida Supreme Court accepted the case to settle the dispute. On the basis of a similar factual scheme, the Cooper Tribunal decided that a court should base the modification of the rotating custody agreements on the essential modification test rather than conducting a de novo review on the basis of the criteria set out in 61.13. In Wade, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that not only should the Cooper test be applied when applications to change the revolving detention rules were to be processed, but they should also apply to all custody agreements.