VIDYAWATTIE MATURA, APPELLANT,
v.
ANDREW GRIFFITH, 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.
A Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's decision to allow a father deported to Jamaica to have visitation with his two sons, finding the trial court failed to apply a statutory presumption of detriment when a parent has been convicted of domestic violence battery and overlooked the serious risks of international child abduction to a non-Hague Convention country.
The court reversed the portion of the final judgment authorizing transportation of the children to Jamaica for visitation. The trial court failed to apply the statutory presumption of detriment required when a parent is convicted of misdemeanor battery involving domestic violence, and the monetary bond condition was inadequate to address the serious risk of international abduction to a non-Hague Convention country.
[1] A rebuttable presumption of detriment to a child exists when a parent seeking time-sharing has been convicted of misdemeanor battery involving domestic violence.
[2] A monetary bond is an insufficient safeguard against international parental kidnapping to a country that is not a signatory to the Hague Convention.
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 appears to have overlooked section 61.13(2)(c)2., Florida Statutes, which creates a presumption of detriment to the children when the parent seeking a parenting plan and time-sharing has been convicted of misdemeanor battery involving domestic violence.”
Establishes the statutory presumption the trial court failed to apply
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe mother and father were divorcing. The father was deported to Jamaica following convictions for two batteries involving domestic violence against t…
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.
Vidyawattie Matura (“the mother”) appeals from a final judgment dissolving her marriage to Andrew Griffith (“the father”). The only issue on appeal is the trial court’s decision to allow the father to have visitation with the parties’ two sons in Jamaica, a non-signatory to the Hague Convention of the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“Hague Convention”). The father was deported to Jamaica upon convictions for two batteries (reduced from sexual battery and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon) on the mother and had repeatedly threatened to kidnap the children. Because of the obvious risk factors present, the court required the father to post a $50,000 bond for each child before each visit to discourage him from kidnapping the children and to ensure sufficient funds were available for the mother to retrieve the children if he did not return them. She appeals, arguing that the court’s decision to allow time-sharing in Jamaica was not in the children’s best interests and was not based on competent, substantial evidence. We reverse as to the challenged portion of the final judgment.
First, although the court considered the best interest factors in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, it appears to have overlooked section 61.13(2)(c)2., Florida Stat*378utes, which creates a presumption of detriment to the children when the parent seeking a parenting plan and time-sharing has been convicted of misdemeanor battery involving domestic violence.1 Additionally, although the trial court’s concern about abduction by the father is well supported by the evidence, its decision to address that concern through a monetary bond is not. Given the fact that Jamaica is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, there is no evidence suggesting that the mother would be able to gain return of the children from Jamaica through legal processes, no matter how much money was available to her from a bond. See Jacqueline D. Golub, The International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993: The United States’ Attempt to Get Our Children Backr-How Is It Working?, 24 Brook. J. Int’l L. 797 (1999) (“While the Hague Convention has been successful in facilitating the return of many abducted children, it is rendered useless when a child is taken to a country which is not a signatory to the Hague Convention.”). Nor would the evidence support a finding that the bond, standing alone, could deter a potential kidnapping given the father’s demonstrated disregard for the law and repeated threats to take the children from the mother.
For these reasons, we reverse that portion of the final judgment authorizing transportation of the children to Jamaica for visitation with the father, and remand for further proceedings regarding visitation.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
TORPY, C.J., LAWSON and BERGER, JJ., concur.