Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 24, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1168

Lower Tribunal No. 20-18491

________________

Pedro Velasquez,

Appellant,

vs.

Lesly Mendieta,

Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for MiamiDade County, Christina Marie DiRaimondo, Judge.

The Joseph Firm, P.A., and Marck K. Joseph, for appellant.

Recoba Law Office, and Megan Roth and Raul C. Recoba, for 

appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and HENDON and GORDO, JJ. 

HENDON, J.

Pedro Velasquez (“Husband” or “Father”) appeals from the Order on 
2

Father’s Motion for Temporary Timesharing entered following an 

evidentiary hearing, which order reflects lower tribunal case number 2020-

018491 FC 04. We affirm the order under review but remand with 

instructions for the trial court to enter an amended order reflecting the 

correct lower tribunal case number—2020-019084 FC 04. 

The Husband and Lesly Mendieta (“Wife”) have two actions pending 

before the same division in the lower tribunal: (1) a domestic violence 

action initiated by the Wife when she filed a Petition for Injunction for 

Protection Against Domestic Violence with Children against the Husband 

(“Injunction Petition”), which was assigned case number 2020-018491 FC 

04 (“Domestic Violence Action”), and (2) a dissolution of marriage action 

initiated by the Wife, which was assigned case number 2020-019084 FC 04 

(“Divorce Action”). At all times relevant to this appeal, both actions were 

before Judge Cristina Marie DiRaimondo. 

In these two cases, three notices were filed setting matters for 

hearing before Judge DiRaimondo on April 19, 2021 at 2:30 p.m. via 

Zoom—(1) a notice of hearing filed in the Domestic Violence Action setting 

the Husband’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or to Dismiss Petition for 

Injunction and also setting the final hearing in the Domestic Violence 

Action; (2) a notice of hearing filed in the Divorce Action setting the Father’s 
3

Motion for Temporary Timesharing Schedule (“Motion for Temporary 

Timesharing”); and (3) a notice of hearing filed in the Domestic Violence 

Action setting the Wife’s Motion for Leave to Amend Petition. 

At the April 19, 2021 hearing, the trial court granted the Wife’s motion 

for leave to amend the Injunction Petition, and stated that, during this 

hearing, it would not be ruling on the Husband’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment and/or to Dismiss Petition for Injunction or conducting the final 

hearing in the Domestic Violence Action. Moreover, the trial court entered 

the order under review—Order on Father’s Motion for Temporary 

Timesharing. In this order, the trial court denied the Father’s Motion for 

Temporary Timesharing without prejudice, appointed a guardian ad litem 

(“GAL”), noted that the trial court would revisit the temporary timesharing 

issue after the GAL provides a recommendation to the trial court, and 

ordered the parties to continue the timesharing as set forth in the Agreed 

Timesharing Order entered in January 2021 in the Domestic Violence 

Action. Although the Father’s Motion for Temporary Timesharing was filed 

in the Divorce Action, the order under review reflects the case number in 

the Domestic Violence Action. The Father’s appeal followed. 

The Father argues that the trial court erred by entering the order 

under review where a motion for temporary timesharing was not filed or 
4

noticed for hearing in the Domestic Violence Action. The Father’s 

argument lacks merit. 

The Father’s Motion for Temporary Timesharing and the respective 

notice of hearing were filed in the Divorce Action, not the Domestic 

Violence Action. Thus, the Father’s argument completely lacks merit as it 

evident that the reference to the case number in the Domestic Violence 

Action was nothing more than a scrivener’s error. 

We also reject the Father’s argument that the trial court erred by 

ordering the appointment of a GAL where neither party filed a motion 

requesting the appointment of a GAL in the Domestic Violence Action, and 

the trial court lacked the authority to appoint a GAL in a domestic violence 

action. Contrary to the Father’s contention, the trial court appointed the 

GAL in the Divorce Action, not the Domestic Violence Action. As stated 

earlier, the reference to the case number in the Domestic Violence Action is 

a scrivener’s error. Further, a trial court has the discretion to appoint a 

GAL in a dissolution of marriage action if the trial court determines it is in 

the best interest of the child. See § 61.401, Fla. Stat. (2021). As such, this 

argument also lacks merit. Accordingly, we affirm the order under review 

but remand with instructions for the trial court to enter an amended order 

reflecting the correct lower tribunal case number—2020-019084 FC 04. 
5

Affirmed and remanded with instructions.