LEONARD C. BALAS, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
KATHRYN BALAS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Leonard Balas appeals a trial court order requiring him to undergo a psychological evaluation and pay for it before his motion to reestablish visitation with his minor son would be considered. The appellate court reverses, holding that the trial court failed to find that suspending visitation was in the child's best interests and failed to consider Balas's ability to pay, which is critical given Florida's public policy favoring parental contact.
The trial court's order is invalid because it lacks a finding that suspending visitation serves the child's best interests. Additionally, financial inability to pay for a psychological evaluation cannot be a valid condition for reestablishing visitation rights, and if the parent cannot afford the evaluation, the court must arrange for it at no cost.
[1] A trial court order requiring a psychological evaluation as a condition for reestablishing visitation must be supported by a finding that the evaluation is in the best in…
[2] Denial of visitation rights is disfavored unless the best interests and welfare of the child necessitate such a denial.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is the public policy of this state to assure that each minor child has frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents separate or the marriage of the parties is dissolved.”
Establishes Florida's strong policy preference for parental contact after separation, making denial of visitation disfavored.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBalas wrote a letter to the court and his ex-wife expressing anger and frustration at being prohibited from contact with his son pursuant to a contemp…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Visitation Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
Leonard Balas appeals from a nonfinal order directing him to undergo a psychological evaluation before the trial court will consider his motion to reestablish visitation with his minor son. The order also directs Balas to deposit such sums of money as are necessary to pay for the evaluation into the trust account of his attorney.
We reverse and remand this cause for determination of two factors which are necessary to the validity of the order. The basis for the trial court’s order was a letter written by Balas to the court and to his ex-wife in which Balas expressed his anger and frustration at being prohibited from contact with his son pursuant to an order of contempt.
However, the order contains no finding by the court that it is in the best interests of the child that visitation with his father be suspended pending the father’s psychological evaluation. Indeed, there is no indication in the letter that Balas intended any harm to his son or to his ex-wife, or to the court for that matter. “It is the public policy of this state to assure that each minor child has frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents separate or the marriage of the parties is dissolved....” § 61.13(2)(b)l, Fla.Stat. (1987).
Accordingly, the denial of visitation rights is not favored unless the best interests and welfare of the child so dictate. Nalley v. Nalley, 406 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Consequently, we remand this cause with directions that the trial court conduct a hearing to determine whether the child’s best interests are served by suspending visitation with Balas pending the latter’s psychological evaluation.
If suspension of visitation is found not to be in the child's best interests, on remand we further direct the court to conduct a hearing to determine Balas’s ability to pay for the psychological evaluation. Because financial inability to pay child support is an invalid reason for terminating a parent’s visitation rights, § 61.13(4)(c)(l), Fla.Stat. (1987); Heckler v. Heckler, 351 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), we feel that financial inability to pay to satisfy a condition of reestablishing visitation rights would likewise be an invalid reason for terminating those rights. If the court finds that Balas is unable to pay for the evaluation, it should make arrangements for the evaluation to be conducted at no cost to Balas.
Reversed and remanded with directions consistent with this opinion.
RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hunter v. Hunter, 540 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…nied, 263 So. 2d 831 (Fla.1972). Suspension of visitation for one year, see McMurtry v. McMurtry, 496 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), and consideration of psychological evaluations of the parties are within the court's discretion. See Balas v. Balas, 521 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Creach v. Creach, 516 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). The record before us demonstrates questionable behavior by the father toward the children, and justifies the trial court’s exercise of discretion in finding that a material ch…
-
Kent v. Jayne Bumpers Burdick and Laurence Burdick, 573 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…inability to support his child would not alone have justified the lower court’s denial of his visitation rights without an initial determination or other evidence that visitation with him would be detrimental to A.J.B.’s welfare. See Balas v. Balas, 521 So. 2d 343, 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (financial inability to pay child support is an invalid reason for terminating a parent’s visitation rights); In the Interest of D.F.W. Jr., 497 So. 2d 925, 926 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (the father’s duty to pay child support and…
-
Balas v. Balas, 541 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…PER CURIAM. We affirm the trial court’s order that appellant’s visitation rights be suspended. We conclude that the order did not fail to comply with this court’s mandate in Balas v. Balas, 521 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We anticipate that the trial court will be cognizant of any future development justifying reinstatement of visitation. CAMPBELL, C.J., and LEHAN and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Daewid Hechler v. Marita Hechler, 351 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Nalley v. Nalley, 406 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)