Court Opinion

ID: 9953512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 14:02:14.974876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:39.591018
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
                        SECOND DISTRICT

                       ROCHESTER SOUTHWELL,

                                 Appellant,

                                     v.

                           MARY SOUTHWELL,

                                  Appellee.

                               No. 2D23-641

                               March 22, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Alissa M. Ellison,
Judge.

Rochester Southwell, pro se.

Mary Southwell, pro se.

SILBERMAN, Judge.
     Rochester Southwell (the Former Husband), pro se below and on
appeal, challenges a final judgment that dissolves his marriage to Mary
Southwell (the Former Wife). The parties have one minor child, and the
Former Husband argues that the trial court erred in not awarding
timesharing to him when he had failed to complete a statutorily required
parenting class. Because the Former Husband has not demonstrated
reversible error, we affirm the final judgment.
     Section 61.21(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2021), mandates that each
party to a dissolution of marriage proceeding that involves minor
children "shall complete the Parent Education and Family Stabilization
Course before the entry by the court of a final judgment." The statute
requires a petitioner to "complete the course within 45 days after the
filing of the petition." § 61.21(5). However, "[t]he court may excuse a
party from attending the parenting course, or from completing the course
within the required time, for good cause." § 61.21(4)(b). Each party
must "file proof of compliance with this subsection with the court prior to
the entry of the final judgment." § 61.21(5). With respect to the failure
of a party to comply, the statute provides that "[t]he court may hold any
parent who fails to attend a required parenting course in contempt, or
that parent may be denied shared parental responsibility or time-sharing
or otherwise sanctioned as the court deems appropriate." § 61.21(9).
     It is undisputed that the Former Husband did not complete the
required parenting course. The trial court awarded shared parental
responsibility but denied timesharing to the Former Husband as section
61.21(9) allows. We note that in the final judgment the trial court also
alerted the Former Husband that once he filed a certificate of completion
for the required parenting course, he could "file[] an appropriate motion
or pleading for a best interest hearing" in order to establish timesharing
with his child. Thus, the Former Husband is not foreclosed from seeking
timesharing in the trial court.
     Affirmed.

BLACK and SMITH, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.

                                      2