ANDREA B. OTTO-JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
REUBEN T. JONES, 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.
Andrea Otto-Jones appeals a trial court order requiring her nine-year-old son to attend private school for the first half of the school year and public school for the second half. The appellate court reversed, holding that the rotating school schedule lacked evidentiary support that it served the child's best interests.
The court reversed the order, holding that there was no evidence the rotating school schedule serves the child's best interests. The court noted that such disruption to a child's academic and personal life during a single school year is not in the child's best interest, even with parental cooperation on transitions.
[1] A court order requiring a child to rotate between two different schools during the school year is improper without evidence that such an arrangement is in the child's bes…
[2] A rotating school schedule for a child can be disruptive to their academic and personal life.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“there was no evidence that this rotating school schedule is in the best interest of the child”
States the primary basis for reversal—lack of evidentiary support for the school rotation order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAndrea Otto-Jones (Mother) and Reuben Jones (Father) were unable to agree on which school their nine-year-old son should attend. The trial court order…
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.
Andrea B. Otto-Jones, the Mother, appeals an order requiring the parties’ nine-year-old son to attend a private school in Pinellas County for the first half of the school year and attend a Hillsborough County public school for the second half of the school year. The order was entered after a hearing on the Mother’s “Motion Regarding Child’s Continued Attendance at [the private school],” which was filed after the Mother and Reuben Jones, the Father, were unable to agree regarding which school their son should attend. We understand the trial court’s frustration with the parties, whom it found engaged in repeated and unnecessarily vexatious litigation regarding the educational decision making for the child.1 However, we must reverse the order because there was no evidence that this rotating school schedule is in the best interest of the child.
In Langford v. Ortiz, 654 So.2d 1237, 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), this court similarly held that it was not in the best interest of the child to require the child, who was in the second grade, to rotate schools at the beginning of December and the beginning of June every year. This court noted that attending two different schools during the school year would be “a disruption in this young girl’s academic and personal life, no matter how much her parents work to smooth the transition.” Id.; see Bainbridge v. Pratt, 68 So.3d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (reversing trial court order where there was no evidence that it was in the best interest of the child to require child with special needs to rotate schools— attending a school where mother lived for a year and then attending a school where father lived for a year). In the present case, the trial court appeared to recognize that a rotating school schedule was not in the child’s best interest when it warned the parties:
And if the parties can’t agree on something, I guarantee that if you come back in front of me, I’m going to do just what I threatened to do: You’re going to pick one year and mom is going to pick the next year and then you’re going to pick and mom’s going to pick. And if you two think that’s in [the child’s] best interest, I would seriously reconsider that.2
*988We note that it would be beneficial to the child if the parents could agree on which school the child will attend. However, if past history is any indication, such an agreement is not likely. Therefore, if the parties do not immediately indicate to the trial court that there is an ongoing effort to select the child’s school, the trial court will need to expedite this matter and hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the school which is in the child’s best interest to attend.
Accordingly, the trial court order is reversed and remanded with directions.
ALTENBERND and MORRIS, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sabatini v. Wigh, 98 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…hildren for their parents’ contumacious conduct, a result opposite from their best interests.”). Likewise, when making decisions that impact a child’s education, the trial court must consider the best interests of the child. See Otto-Jones v. Jones, 69 So. 3d 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (reversing an order requiring the parties’ child to spend half the school year in private school and half in public school because such a rotating schedule was not in the best interests of the child); Norris v. Norris, 926 So. 2d…
-
Hassenplug v. Hassenplug, 346 So. 3d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…n the issue. 'In such a circumstance, the court must resolve the impasse by determining the best interests of the child.' " (first citing and then quoting Dickson v. Dickson, 169 So. 3d 287, 289–90 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015))); e.g., Otto-Jones v. Jones, 69 So. 3d 986, 987 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (reversing an order requiring the parties' child to spend half the school year in private school and half in public school because "there was no evidence that this rotating school schedule [wa]s in the best interest of the ch…
Authorities Cited
- Langford v. Ortiz, 654 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Bainbridge v. Pratt, 68 So. 3d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)