KENZIE SADLAK
v.
FRANK TRUJILLO
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 petition for determination of parental responsibility, parenting plan, timesharing, and child support should be transferred to an underlying paternity action rather than dismissed, in accordance with Florida Family Law Rules requiring related family cases to be handled before one judge.
[1] Related family cases, including paternity actions and petitions for parental responsibility and child support, must be handled before a single judge unless impractical, a…
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“All related family cases must be handled before one judge unless impractical.”
Citation to Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.003 explaining the mandatory consolidation rule for related cases.
Appellant Kenzie N. Sadlak filed a petition for determination of parental responsibility, parenting plan, timesharing, and child support. The trial co…
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.
Kenzie N. Sadlak, P.A., and Kenzie N. Sadlak, for appellant. Joyce Law, P.A., and Richard F. Joyce, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the appellant’s petition for determination of parental responsibility, parenting plan, timesharing, and child support, and remand with instructions to transfer the petition to the underlying paternity action in accordance with any Eleventh Judicial Circuit administrative policy or process. See Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.003 (“All related family cases must be handled before one judge unless impractical.”); Urbach
v. Guardianship of J.R.U., 321 So. 3d 390, 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
(“Because the trial judge erred in dismissing the petition instead of transferring it to the appropriate division, we reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate the petition and leave the issue of transfer to the discretion of the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Picard v. Picard, 287 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)
-
Athea v. Athea, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D324 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
-
Mullarkey v. Tiraco (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Aliza Urbach v. In re Guardianship of J.R.U., 321 So. 3d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)