Divorce florida in law violating

It is important that you find an attorney who is knowledgeable in the area of military divorces and who can properly draft your agreement so that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service can properly divide the retirement. If you do not retain the services of an attorney who is knowledgeable in the area of military divorces then you are left having to hire the services of an outside legal source to properly draft the military retirement division section of your Marital Settlement Agreement.


  • Divorce Attorney Scott J. Stadler.
  • Enforcing a Divorce Settlement in the State of Florida?
  • Discovery; forms 12.930 - 12.932.
  • getting a georgia marriage license.
  • How Domestic Violence Affects Child Custody in Florida.
  • Military Divorce Laws in Florida?
  • Tampa, Florida Family Law and Divorce Attorney.

Members of the military receive differential pay when they are deployed which is greater for the period of their deployment then their basic pay. If it was a onetime deployment and the military member does not have the option of deploying again, then the differential pay will likely not be used to calculate child support and alimony. Also, ensure that you keep in mind the differential pay when calculating any back alimony and child support.

So long as a parent is a member of the military that parent and the child ren will be provided Health, Dental and Ocular insurance by the military at no extra cost to the military member. Usually, there are no co-pays needed. Therefore, if you are splitting up, it is best if the military member provides the health insurance for the child ren.

The military does offer lifelong health benefits for its service members who dedicate at least 20 years of their life to service. There are two different types of health benefits for military spouses:. In this circumstance, the military spouse is entitled to full military medical benefits so long as they do not remarry during or enroll in an employer-sponsored health insurance plan only for a transitional period and thereafter the spouse may purchase a DOD-negotiated conversion health policy.

If you do not meet the requirements of either the Transitional health Coverage or the Full Coverage then military health coverage terminates upon divorce. This health program requires you to pay a premium to participate and it provides temporary health care coverage for up to 36 months so long as you enroll within 60 days of losing full military health care benefits. For most members of the military PCS is inevitable after years at one base. Often times you are not given the luxury of picking where you want to go which can cause havoc to an existing time-sharing schedule or divorce proceedings.

Best case scenario you are able to work out a long distance time-sharing schedule with the other parent as soon as you receive your Orders. If not, it is important to file for relocation if you intend on taking the child ren with you when you PCS or modification if you just need a nonlocal time-sharing schedule and do not intend on taking the child ren with you when you PCS.

Florida statutes provide that a Court shall hear your temporary relocation requests within 30 days of filing and accommodate a final hearing on the relocation within 90 days of filing. The burden of proof to be able to relocate with your child ren in the event you receive Orders for PCS is the same burden of proof if you were trying to relocate without military Orders.

The parent or other person wishing to relocate has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation is in the best interest of the child. If that burden of proof is met, the burden shifts to the non-relocating parent to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation is not in the best interest of the child. Parent with the child ren — all times not specified for the non-local parent as the child ren will be residing the majority of time with this parent. Non-local parent- alternating Thanksgiving break, alternating Christmas break, every Spring break, weeks during the summer, option at local time-sharing.

In Florida, there is a rebuttable presumption against alimony for a marriage less than 7 years. For civilians, there is no penalties for infidelity in Florida unless there was a waste of marital assets as a result of the infidelity. However, for most members of our military, it is a violation of military laws for them to start a new relationship while still legally married regardless of where they live. This section does not apply to Military spouses unless that spouse is also a member of the military. You will want to check with your higher ups to determine how you should proceed, if at all, when considering a new relationship prior to the finalization of your divorce.

While this rule may not seem fair, when you became a member of our military you agreed to hold yourself to the highest standards and morals. Infidelity, regardless of separation, while legally married is viewed by most of the military standards as immoral and unethical. Everyone filing for divorce is required to file a Military Affidavit declaring whether one or both spouses are members of the military and if so, if they are on active duty. SS governs this disclosure. The reason for this declaration is to ensure military members are given deference when it comes to discovery deadlines, telephonic appearances, and accommodations for other court requirements.

It is not necessary, however, for you to put your divorce on hold just because you are going through training or on active duty. Most lawyers are equipped to accommodate the gathering of discovery through electronic means such as email. There are policies defined by the military establishing mandatory duties to support family, even when there is no court order.

The policies are mandatory and the failure to abide by the policies are punishable under the military code of justice. An except from that policy is as follows:. A soldier is required to provide financial support to family members. This obligation is frequently complicated when the soldier is geographically separated from the family. In the majority of these situations, the soldier and the family can manage the financial support without command involvement.

These arrangements may include joint checking accounts or voluntary allotments to the family as appropriate. The commander must become involved when the parties are unable to agree on a proper method to provide financial support to the family members. Skelly v. Skelly, 43 Fla. Preudhomme v. Bailey, 43 Fla. Lennon, 43 Fla. Evans v. The biological father of a married woman's children has the right to bring an action to establishhis parental rights as the father as long as he has manifested a substantial and continuing concern for the welfare of the children.

Martinez v. Regalado Lopez v. Business must be valued and one side required to buy out the other. Garrison v. Each termination case involves three questions: 1 Does a ground for termination of parental rights exist? Shaarbay v. Alvarez, 43 Fla. Masino v. Masino, 43 Fla. Frederick v. Frederick, 43 Fla. Absent a sufficient nexus between a psychiatric disorder and the likelihood that a parent will substantially impair the child's physical, mental, or emotional health, an adjudication of dependency cannot stand.

Fry v. Fry, 43 Fla. When a marital home constitutes nonmarital real property, but is encumbered by a mortgage that marital funds service, the value of the passive, market-driven appreciation of the property that accrues during the course of the marriage is a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. New statute effective July 1, modifies calculation of passive appreciation. Matyjaszek v. Matyjaszek, 43 Fla. Court did not err in failing to find a constructive trust where he found the party so claiming to not be credible.

Maio v. Clarke, 43 Fla. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT: One makes a proper claim for relief from judgment based on a fraudulent affidavit submitted to the trial court in a marital case and there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the former husband's affidavit was in fact fraudulent and whether the former wife relied on the draft of the allegedly fraudulent affidavit when she entered into the marital settlement agreement.

Engstrom v. Engstrom, 43 Fla. McKenzie v. McKenzie, 43 Fla. Foster v. Chong, 43 Fla. Swearingen v. Swearingen, 43 Fla. Garcia v. Guiles, 43 Fla. Clements v. Clements, 43 Fla. Keough v. Keough, 43 Fla. Spikes v. Fonville, 43 Fla. In the Interest of C. Onge v. Carriero, 43 Fla. Cooley v. Cooley, 43 Fla. Fields v. Fields, 43 Fla. CONTEMPT-INDIRECT: Where attorney filed motion for order of commitment and writ of bodily attachment after respondent failed to comply with order requiring payment of attorney's fees to petitioner, it was error to grant the motion without issuing show cause order and without complying with rule applicable to indirect criminal contempt proceedings.

Baratta v. Costa-Martinez, 43 Fla. Carroll v. Goll, 43 Fla. Olivarez v. Olivarez, 43 Fla. Masnev v. Masnev, 43 Fla. Distefano v. Distefano, 43 Fla. Cockran, 43 Fla. Johnson, 43 Fla. ALIMONY: Court may not enter an order of alimony without making a specific finding as to the amount of income to impute to the husband. Imputed income may be based on prior income, but must be specifically stated. Velez v.

Email Ayo & Iken

Montalvo-Velez, 43 Fla. Munoz v. Munoz Salgado, 43Fla. Ryan v. Ryan, 43 Fla. Frank v. Frank, 43 Fla.

Tampa, Florida Family Law and Divorce Attorney | Morla Law Group

Bork v. Pare, 43 Fla. Putative biological father is entitled to join paternity action. In the Interest of J. However, an unequal distribution of the appreciation of the marital home marital home is warranted. Knecht v. Palmer, 43 Fla. Standard v. DOR, 43 Fla. Buschor v. Barnes, 43 Fla. McKnight v. McKnight, 43 Fla. Raulerson v. Font, 43 Fla. Douglas v. Douglas, 43 Fla. The residency requirement may not be established by the uncorroborated testimony of one party, nor can the requirement of corroborating evidence be waived by admission by the parties.

McNeil v. Jenkins-McNeil, 43 Fla. Vaughn v. Vaughn, 43 Fla. Marzullo v. Marzullo, 43 Fla. Elkins v. Elkins, 43 Fla. Lane v. State, 43 Fla. Demming v. Demming, 43 Fla. Evidence was insufficient to enter injunction. Tash v. Rogers, 43 Fla. PATERNITY: A biological father is entitled to rebut the common law presumption that the mother's husband is the legal father of a child born to an intact marriage, where the mother or her husband object to allowing such rebuttal, when he has manifested a substantial and continuing concern for the welfare of the child.

How to Get a Fair Deal in Your Divorce

The presumption of legitimacy is overcome when there is a clear and compelling reason based primarily on the child's best interests. Simmonds v. Perkins, 43 Fla. Sager v. Holgren, 43 Fla. Moody, 43 Fla. Lovelass v. Hutchinson, 43 Fla. Under the deferred distribution method, the court determines what the employee's benefit would be if he retired on the date of the final hearing without any early retirement penalty. The court then multiplies this dollar amount by the percentage to which the other spouse is entitled.

This method yields a fixed dollar amount which the awarded spouse receives from each of the employee's pension payments after retirement. Court may properly determine timesharing based upon an objectively and reasonably certain future event. Purtall, 43 Fla. Form for designation of E-mail address to allow litigant to indicate whether or not he or she is going to designate an email address.

TIME-SHARING: Where husband had been granted supervised time-sharing with children, it was error to fail to set forth specific steps that husband must take in order to obtain unsupervised time-sharing. Solomon v. Increase in Wife's expenses and debts may be a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a modification of alimony. Malowny v. Malowny, 43 Fla. As we have previously recognized, this 'would have the deleterious effect of discouraging cooperation between parents when they agree to make temporary changes in their children's living arrangements to serve their children's best interests.

Martinez, 43 Fla. NAME CHANGE: Court lacked authority to grant mother's petition for name change of minor child where she had failed to obtain consent to serve constructive notice on the father, whose identity is known but whose name is not on the birth certificate.

Summarily shortening proceedings can give rise to a due process violation when they fail to afford a party a full, fair, and meaningful opportunity to be heard. Walters v. Petgrave, 43 Fla. HEARING: Mother is denied due process when court does not allow her to complete her presentation of the evidence for a modification of parenting plan. Haywood v. Bacon, 43 Fla. Miami Herald Publishing, 43 Fla. In order to set aside a settlement agreement the court must find that the agreement is unfair or unreasonable, and that there was either concealment or presumed lack of knowledge.

Roca Rodriguez v. Roca, 43 Fla. Any misunderstanding Husband had with his own interpreter does not constitute fraud. A party to a marital settlement agreement is presumed to know what he is signing and is charged with the duty of procuring a reliable person to explain the document to him prior to signing it. Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 43 Fla. Garrido v. Garrido, 43 Fla. Amro v. Gazze, 43 Fla. There is no distinction between voluntary and involuntary parental location. Castleman v. Bicaldo, 43 Fla. In such cases, service of process is not required. A substantial change of circumstances occurs even if that changes foreseeable or anticipated.

We often see it argued, as in this case, to preclude changes that were 'foreseeable' at the time of the original final judgment. The word choice of 'anticipated' has been unfortunate because it has transformed a very different concept into something that it is not. Gelber v. Brydger, 43 Fla. Williams v. Sapp, 43 Fla. The fact that the aunt had a prior history was DCF and discharged again in the child's presence does not establish that she is an inappropriate caregiver.

Also, biological father has no standing as he had no legal parental rights to children born into an intact marriage. Kurtanovic v. Kurtanovic, 43 Fla. Stricklin v. Stricklin, 43 Fla. Carson-Grayson v. Grayson, 43 Fla. Persaud v. Persaud, 43 Fla. Census Bureau median income for full time workers must be imputed when the evidence is insufficient for the court to make an individualized determination of imputed income for the parent. Heard v. Perales, 43 Fla.

Sealy v. Sealy, 43 Fla. Court must make specific findings in regards to children born or conceived during the marriage but for whom the Husband is not the father. Davis v. Davis, 43 Fla. Injunctions against stalking, however, are rendered moot by their natural expiration. Valenzuela, 43 Fla. Fazio v. Fazio, 43 Fla. Bajcar v. Bajcar, 43 Fla. When a latent ambiguity exists, the court must hear parol evidence to interpret the writing properly. Where MSA anticipated that Husband's inheritance would be given him in a lump sum and it turns out that he got it through disbursements from a trust fund, the Court must consider parol evidence to interpret the MSA intent.

When considering parol evidence concerning the parties' intent, a reasonable interpretation is preferred over one which is unreasonable, and an interpretation that leads to an absurd result or that nullifies other provisions of the contract should be avoided. Morrison v. Morrison, 43 Fla. Depleting an asset to pay attorney's fees in the divorce case is insufficient, without a finding of misconduct, to warrant assigning the depleted asset as part of the equitable distribution plan. Bellows v. Bellows, 43 Fla. A party must have actual notice of and time to prepare for a contested hearing.


  • Need Help Enforcing a Divorce Decree in Florida?.
  • find the current address of someone!
  • What Should I Do If My Spouse Is Violating Temporary Custody Orders in My Divorce? | icovymas.tk;

Two days notice is insufficient notice of a contempt hearing. Kane v. Kane, 43 Fla. Biological father should have been awarded custody of child unless stepfather proved either that father was unfit or that remaining with biological father would result in demonstrable harm to child. Morris v. Morris, 43 Fla. Kozel v. Kozel, 43 Fla. De la Piedra v. De la Piedra, 43 Fla. TIME-SHARING: Statute allowing military servicemember to designate family member to exercise time-sharing rights while the servicemember is under temporary assignment orders to relocate away from the child does not apply in instant case in which service member's assignment was a permanent change in station.

Overstreet v. Overstreet, 43 Fla. Agreement failed to specify when and how husband would become obligated to make equitable distribution payment to wife if sale or refinance did not occur. Kirschner v. Ramsier, 43 Fla. Issue not preserved. Daniels v. Caparello, 43 Fla.

Lewis v. Juliano, 43 Fla. Ferris v. Russell v. Russell, 43 Fla. Crespo v. Lebron, 43 Fla. Zarudny v. Zarudny, 43 Fla. Brown v. Brown, 43 Fla. CONTEMPT: Failure to include in motion for contempt that failure to appear might result in writ of bodily attachment and incarceration did not adversely affect husband's due process rights. Carter v. Hart, 43 Fla. ALIMONY: Although court may order both durational and permanent alimony, only perament alimony should be ordered when there is ongoing need. Hedden v. Hedden, Fla. Ringenberg v. Ringenberg, 43 Fla. Jones v. Jones, 43 Fla.

When an action has been tried by the court without a jury, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment may be raised on appeal whether or not the party raising the question has made any objection thereto in the trial court or made a motion for rehearing, for new trial, or to alter or amend the judgment. Givens v. Holmes, 43 Fla. Givens lodged an objection at his earliest opportunity, albeit the judge had exited the courtroom and was not privy to the objection. In Re: Adoption of Z.

Albassam v. Klob, 43 Fla. Failure to pay support is not conclusive to support a finding of abandonment. Stufft v. Stufft, 43 Fla. Perez, 43 Fla. Pitcher v. Schneider, 43 Fla. ALIMONY: Court abused its discretion by giving retroactive effect to alimony modification so as to charge wife with an obligation resulting from past overpayments by former husband, especially since former wife has suffered a stroke. Millan v. Millan, 43 Fla.

Wells v. Wells, 43 Fla. Fact that party has traveled to Florida did not give rise to personal jurisdiction. Youssef v. Zaitouni, 43 Fla. Guardian ad Litem v. W, 43 Fla. The mother claiming that the children said the Respondent had molested them is insufficient. Keller v. Ramseyer, 43 Fla. VENUE: Court erred in denying motion for change of venue to county in which parties last resided with intent to remain married. Diaz v. Vasquez, 43 Fla. Soria v. Soria, 43 Fla. Stewart v. Stewart, 43 Fla. Burnett v. Burnett, 43 Fla. ALIMONY: Court erred in ordering former husband to secure alimony with life insurance without findings regarding availability and cost of insurance, former husband's ability to pay, and special circumstances that warrant security.

Nassirou v. Borba, 43 Fla. Because court failed to afford former wife requisite protections for a criminal contempt order, the order is reversed. Ash v. Campion, 43 Fla. ALIMONY: Court erred by denying award of alimony on ground that former wife was in a supportive relationship without making findings about the extent of the relationship.

Only those relationships that are substantially equivalent to a remarriage warrant a reduction of alimony. Bruce v. Ispass v. Ispass, 43 Fla. Gal v. Gal, 43 Fla. Curtis v. Reinhardt, 43 Fla. Speegle v. Rhoden, 43 Fla. MSA: Absent any evidence that the parties intended to endow a special meaning in the terms used in the agreement, the unambiguous language is to be given a realistic interpretation based upon the plain, everyday meaning conveyed by the words. Verrier v. Oaks, 43 Fla. Leija v. Byrd, 43 Fla. Stalking is by definition repeated acts.

Driving by a house only one time is not stalking. Pickett v. Lopez v. Hall, 43 Fla. Wohlberg v. Connor, 43 Fla. Furman v. Furman, 43 Fla. Price v. Price, 43 Fla. Court may not make a blanket determination that there are no grounds for dependency. Guardian Ad Litem v. PATERNITY: Court erred in granting petition to disestablish paternity on basis of newly discovered evidence demonstrating that petitioner is not biological father of child without making findings that newly discovered evidence relating to paternity has come to petitioner's knowledge since initial paternity determination and that scientific test to show probability of paternity was properly conducted.

Augustin, 43 Fla. Gaynor v. Inod, 43 Fla. CONTEMPT: Court erred in striking husband's alimony pleading as sanction for failure to comply with previous discovery order in absence of express finding that husband acted deliberately and willfully. Lockett v. Lockett, 43 Fla. Petitioner must establish emotional distress.

Akin v. Jacobs, 43 Fla. Lambert, concurring. Brunsman v. Brunsman, 43 Fla. Ivko v. Ger, 43 Fla. Saunders, 42 Fla. Ashford-Cooper v. Ruff, 42 Fla. CONTEMPT: Where MSA gave wife exclusive possession of marital home and clearly stated that wife would reside in home with children, and no one else, husband's obligation to pay one-half of mortgage on marital home was an aspect of support enforceable by contempt.

Dufour v. Damiani, 42 Fla. Baker, 42 Fla. Family Creations v. Macci v. Jaeger and Jaeger, 42 Fla. Dogoda v. Dogoda, 42 Fla. Golchin v. Farzaneh, 42 Fla. Messing v. Nieradka, 42 Fla. ATTORNEY' S FEES: Court erred in concluding that former wife should be judicially estopped from claiming entitlement to attorney's fees and costs awarded to her in prebankruptcy dissolution of marriage proceedings on ground that wife had failed to disclose the fee award as an asset in her bankruptcy petition where wife consistently maintained that the fee award was not an asset of bankruptcy estate and totality of circumstances does not support finding that former wife intended to make mockery of justice.

Chittum v. Chittum, 42 Fla. Gallerani v. Piquet, 42 Fla. Continuing writ of garnishment is not available to collect judgment for attorney's fees. Shimer v. Corey, 42 Fla. Injunction may only be entered when the petitioner is the person stalked. Dixon v. Sermon, 42 Fla. Court may act sua sponte in the best interests of minor children when appropriate.

DCF, 42 Fla. Brady v. Brady, 42 Fla. LIFE INSURANCE: Court erred in requiring that wife maintain life insurance policy as security for her alimony obligation without making findings as to insurability, cost of proposed insurance, ability to afford insurance, and whether appropriate circumstances existed to justify ordering wife to maintain life insurance. Dowling v. Dowling, 42 Fla. Parents may not contract away or waive the rights of their child for support. Lancaster v.

Lancaster, 42 Fla. Kessinger v. Kessinger, 42 Fla. Sanders, 42 Fla. Vitale v. State, 42 Fla. Huertas del Pino v. Huertas del Pino, 42 Fla. JUDGMENT: Appearance of impropriety arose when trial judge adopted verbatim husband's proposed final judgment, which husband submitted ex parte, without orally announcing findings or rulings during or at end of trial. Although a trial court may request that counsel for both parties submit a proposed final judgment, the court may not adopt the judgment verbatim, blindly, or without making in-court findings. West v. West, 42 Fla.

Duncan v. Brickman, 42 Fla. Hodge v. Hodge, 42 Fla. Motion for contempt could not be denied on basis of either laches or equitable estoppel absent evidentiary hearing. Lovejoy v. Poole, 42 Fla. Scudder v. Scudder, 42 Fla. Bailey v. Bailey, 42 Fla. If a trial court decides to treat a stock option as an asset, it cannot also treat that same option as income Child support and alimony determinations require this finding.

Goodman v. Husband should not be given dollar-for-dollar credit for said contributions, but rather for one half the value. Betts v. Betts, 42 Fla. Hernandez v. DOR, 42 Fla. And it isn't this court's place to undercut the statute by introducing a parallel, judicially created process or means by which dissatisfied parents can require courts to re-modify a parenting plan or time-sharing schedule. Dukes v. Griffin, 42 Fla. Broga v. Broga, 42 Fla. Foster, 42 Fla. Schroll, Fla. ALIMONY: Where the Wife has a clear need for permanent alimony, but it is established that the Husband does not have the current ability to pay, Court should order a nominal award of permanent alimony in order to preserve jurisdiction to revisit this matte upon a substantial change in the parties' respective financial circumstances.

In Re: Amendments, 42 Fla. Neville v. McKibben, 42 Fla. Kohl v. Perkins v. Simmonds, 42 Fla. In the interest of Y. Lukacs v. Ice, 42 Fla. Kuchera v. Kuchera, 42 Fla. Viker v. Cherry, 42 Fla.

What to Expect in a Florida Divorce?

Court cannot order child support inconsistent with the Marital Settlement Agreement. Bell v. Broch, 42 Fla. Mother's right to choose adoptive family for her child is a relevant factor. Adkins v. Solongo, 42 Fla. Ortiz v. Ortiz, 42 Fla. Alston v. Vazquez, 42 Fla. Carson v. Carson, 42 Fla. Buchanan v. Buchanan, 42 Fla. Nugent v. Gillette v. Gillette, 42 Fla. Pulkkinen v. Pulkinen, 42 Fla. Ward or the intended spouse may seek court approval after marrying in order to ratify the marriage.

The concept of a "void" or "voidable" marriage does not apply. Smith, 42 Fla. Ability to pay is one consideration. An award of attorney's fees must contain express findings regarding the number of hours reasonably expended and a reasonable hourly rate for the type of litigation involved. Parental rights may not be terminated on the basis of on pled grounds of abandonment and threatened harm to child. Rosaler v. Rosaler, 42 Fla. Kallett v. Kastriner, 42 Fla. ALIMONY: Court erred in dissolving lien imposed on now-deceased former husband's real property secure award of alimony where the lien was intended to serve as security for the ongoing stream of payments to the former wife.

Mackoul v. Mackoul, 42 Fla. Packal v. Johnson, 42 Fla. Higgens v. Higgens, 42 Fla. Viscito v. Viscito, 42 Fla. Sturms v. Sturms, 42 Fla. Hamane v. Elofir, 42 Fla. Disparate earning abilities cannot, without more, justify unequal distribution of marital assets and liabilities. Vilardi v. Strinko v. Castellat v. Pereira, 42 Fla. Barlow v. Bond v. Patero v. Patero, 42 Fla. When court modifies alimony, there is a presumption of retroactivity. Dennis v.

Dennis, 42 Fla. Destefanis v. Tan, 42 Fla. State,42 Fla. Fischer, 42 Fla. Parental rights may be terminated on the basis of the parent's mental illness. Van Der Meulen v. Appellate court does not accept erroneous concessions of error where the issue is not preserved. Whissell v.

Newsom v. Newsom, 42 Fla. Kirtley v. Callwood v. Callwood, 42 Fla. Sickels v. Sickels, 42 Fla. Chittim v. Chittim, 42 Fla. Raphael v. Raphael, 42 Fla. Threadgill v. Nishimura, 42 Fla. McMahan v. McMahan, 42 Fla. Lord v. Lerner v. NO-CONTACT ORDER: Court erred in granting former husband's ore tenus motion for no-contact order based solely on allegations set forth by counsel where no-contact order was not requested in the pleadings, and there was no evidence in record to support order. Lee, 42 Fla. APPEALS: Meaningful review of amounts of child support and durational alimony awards is precluded where final judgment contained material inconsistencies and did not include necessary findings of fact.

Remanded for correction and findings of fact. Brown, 42 Fla. Kidd v. Kidd, 42 Fla. STALKING: Court erred in entering injunction against stalking where there was no competent substantial evidence of stalking and no stipulation to evidence of stalking. While Respondent agreed to an order prohibiting him from contacting Bockorick, there is no indication that he agreed to having engaged in stalking, or was even aware the final judgment would contain a finding of stalking. Bockorick, 42 Fla. Faddis v. Curiale v. Curiale, 42 Fla.

Gaut v. The former wife's responsible for child support only from the date she first failed to exercise time-sharing. Child support may be modified based on one parent's failure to exercise time-sharing.

admin