MICHAEL LINDSTROM
v.
ANA PAULA MASCHIORO LINDSTROM
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 UCCJEA applies only to proceedings in which custody is at issue, and therefore does not divest a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over a paternity action where the parties do not dispute custody.
[1] The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act applies only to proceedings in which legal custody, physical custody, residential care, or visitation with resp…
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“The UCCJEA is 'a jurisdictional act which controls custody disputes.' And it only applies where custody is at issue.”
Court's explanation of the scope and application of the UCCJEA
Michael Lindstrom appealed a paternity action decided by the trial court, arguing the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the UCCJEA appl…
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 Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction And Enforcement Act (Uccjea) cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed April 2, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-2035 Lower Tribunal No. 21-13275 ________________
Michael Lindstrom, Appellant,
vs.
Ana Paula Maschioro Lindstrom, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Christina Marie DiRaimondo, Judge.
Marti Goldstein, P.A., and Marti Goldstein, for appellant.
No appearance, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
In this paternity action, the Appellant Michael Lindstrom asserts that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”) applies. We disagree. The UCCJEA is “a jurisdictional act which controls custody disputes.” Arjona v. Torres, 941 So. 2d 451, 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (emphasis omitted). And it only applies where custody is at issue. See § 61.503(4), Fla. Stat. (2023) (“‘Child custody proceeding’ means a proceeding in which legal custody, physical custody, residential care, or visitation with respect to a child is an issue. The term includes a proceeding for divorce, separation, neglect, abuse, dependency, guardianship, paternity, termination of parental rights, and protection from domestic violence, in which the issue may appear.”); id. at (3) (“‘Child custody determination’ . . . does not include an order relating to child support or other monetary obligation of an individual.”). The parties here did not dispute custody of the minor child. As a result, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over this paternity action. See Nissen v. Cortez Moreno, 10 So. 3d 1110, 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Sanchez v. Fernandez, 915 So. 2d 192, 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sanchez v. Fernandez, 915 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Arjona v. Torres, 941 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Garcia v. Int'l Bonded Courier & Emp'r's Ins. Co. of Wausau, 10 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)