Case Name: Donna WAYNO and Louis C. Rohde, etc., Appellants, v. Thomas M. WAYNO, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-03-24
Citations: 756 So. 2d 1024
Docket Number: No. 5D99-303
Parties: Donna WAYNO and Louis C. Rohde, etc., Appellants, v. Thomas M. WAYNO, Appellee.
Judges: COBB, J., concurs and concurs specially with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 756
Pages: 1024–1028

Head Matter:
Donna WAYNO and Louis C. Rohde, etc., Appellants, v. Thomas M. WAYNO, Appellee.
No. 5D99-303.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
March 24, 2000.
Rehearing Denied April 20, 2000.
Henry J. Martocci, Rockledge, for Appellants.
Thomas H. Yardley, Cocoa, for Appellee.

Opinion:
DAUKSCH, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment in a marital dissolution case. We find no error but write to address one point. Appellant asserts the court was bound to accept and ratify by judgment the mediated settlement regarding child custody once the court had granted its approval in accordance with rule 12.740(f)(2), Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure.
(2) After the agreement is filed, the court shall take action as required by law. When court approval is not necessary, the agreement shall become binding upon filing. When court approval is necessary, the agreement shall become binding upon approval. In either event, the agreement shall be made part of the final judgment or order in the case.
We disagree with appellant's assertion. The court had not heard evidence before its approval and granted the approval before rendering final judgment. It is axiomatic that only the court can be the final authority regarding child custody and child support and.those issues can always be subject to review based on the evidence and, after judgment; upon a showing of a material change in circumstances. It goes without saying that the best interest of the child is the overriding factor to be considered. Even though the judge found in this case that a change in circumstances had occurred, that is not the guiding principle. Although the rule does not explicitly require it, it is at least implicit in the rule and certainly the better practice for the judge to not approve either custody or support before being fully informed about the welfare of the children. Thus, approval should be withheld in those issues until final judgment, or, if notpthen the withdrawal of approval must be fully available until judgment. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
COBB, J., concurs and concurs specially with opinion.
W. SHARP, J., dissents with opinion.