AMBER CHANTELLE LYLES, N/K/A AMBER C. BURTON
v.
MICHAEL SCOTT GUFFEY, JR.
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.
The appellate court reversed a trial court's modification of a paternity judgment, finding that the father's return to Florida was a foreseeable event and thus not a substantial change in circumstances justifying modification of the parenting plan. This decision clarifies the "extraordinary burden" required to modify such plans.
No, the father's return to Florida was a foreseeable event and not a substantial change in circumstances that was not reasonably contemplated. Therefore, the trial court erred in modifying the parenting plan.
[1] A party seeking to modify a parenting plan must demonstrate that circumstances have substantially and materially changed since the original determination, the change was…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“A party seeking to modify a parenting plan must show (1) circumstances have substantially and materially changed* since the original time-sharing determination, (2) the change was not reasonably contemplated by the parties, and (3) the child’s best interests justify changing the time-sharing plan.”
This quote outlines the legal standard for modifying a parenting plan.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties initially agreed to a paternity judgment in 2014, sharing parental responsibility with the mother having ultimate decision-making authorit…
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 Substantial And Material Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In June 2014, the parties on appeal entered a stipulated final judgment of paternity, whereby the parties shared parental responsibility over their child, M.C.G-L. Ultimate decision-making authority rested with Appellant, as she was remaining in Florida with the child and Appellee was moving to Virginia. Appellee subsequently filed a petition for modification of the final judgment in 2019 when he returned to Florida, seeking majority time-sharing. The trial court found that Appellee’s return from Virginia to Florida was a substantial change in circumstances that neither party reasonably anticipated at the time the final judgment was entered in 2014. We disagree and reverse.
A party seeking to modify a parenting plan must show (1) circumstances have substantially and materially changed* since the original time-sharing determination, (2) the change was not reasonably contemplated by the parties, and (3) the child’s best interests justify changing the time-sharing plan. Garcia v. Guiles, 254 So. 3d 637, 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). Demonstrating to the court that there has been a sufficient substantial change in circumstances places an “extraordinary burden” on the party seeking modification. Korkmaz v. Korkmaz, 200 So. 3d 263, 265 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (quoting Chamberlain v. Eisinger, 159 So. 3d 185, 189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)). The record in this case establishes that Appellee failed to meet the “extraordinary burden” required of him as the party seeking modification of a final judgment of paternity because the evidence does not support the trial court’s finding that Appellee’s return to Florida was not reasonably contemplated. Korkmaz, 200 So. 3d at 265. Accordingly, we reverse.
REVERSED.
MAKAR, OSTERHAUS, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Yasar Korkmaz v. Anastasia Korkmaz, 200 So. 3d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
- Bryan v. Wheels, 295 So. 3d 889 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)
- Garcia v. Guiles, 254 So. 3d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)