MITCHEL KALMANSON, APPELLANT,
v.
DONNA J. KALMANSON, 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.
The appellate court vacated a trial court order restricting a father's visitation to supervised-only contact because the order was entered without evidence and without the father present to respond.
A trial court abuses its discretion by entering a visitation restriction order without presenting evidence on the matter and without the affected parent present to be heard.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by entering a visitation restriction order without presenting evidence on the matter and without the affected parent present to respon…
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 intelligenceMitchel Kalmanson appealed a post-dissolution order restricting his visitation with his two daughters to supervised contact only. The order was entere…
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 Mental Health Evaluation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mitchel Kalmanson appeals a post-dissolution of marriage non-final order requiring that all visitation with his two daughters be supervised. The order was entered at a hearing held on April 19, 2000 despite the former wife’s agreement to defer the issue of the former husband’s visitation to a later date because the former husband would not be available to attend this hearing.
We agree with the former husband that the trial court abused its discretion by entering the order when no evidence was presented on the matter of visitation prior to the trial court’s ruling that the former husband would only be allowed restricted visitation with his children. Additionally, the order was to be a temporary order until another hearing took place after a mental health evaluation had occurred. That later hearing took place on June 19, 2000, but the evaluation still had not been completed and the restricted visitation was continued without an evidentiary hearing.
We vacate the order allowing only restricted visitation and remand to the trial court to conduct an expedited evidentiary hearing on the former wife’s motions regarding the former husband’s rights of visitation.
VACATE ORDER; REMAND.
SHARP, W., PETERSON and PLEUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robinson v. Mitchel Kalmanson, 882 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…DED. SHARP, W., and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . Kalmanson v. Lockett, 848 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Kalmanson v. Kalmanson, 823 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Kalmanson v. Kalmanson, 796 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Kalmanson v. Kalmanson, 785 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). In addition, another appeal has recently been filed dealing with the same dissolution. Robinson v. Kalmanson, Case No. 5D04-1644.…