Court Opinion

ID: 9903469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 15:36:50.056551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:35.383515
License: Public Domain

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                     FIFTH DISTRICT

                                    NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
                                    FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
                                    DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

LAEL FISHER WOODS,

            Appellant,
                                          Case No. 5D22-825
v.                                        LT Case No. 05-2021-DR-016706-X

CHRISTOPHER PATRICK WOODS,

            Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed February 24, 2023

Nonfinal Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Brevard County,
Robert Segal, Judge.

Elizabeth Siano Harris, of Harris
Appellate Law Office, Mims, for
Appellant.

Heather C. Harris, of The H. Harris
Law Firm, Merritt Island, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.
      Appellant, Lael Woods, asks this Court to reverse the trial court's order

denying her petition which sought a permanent domestic violence injunction

against her husband, Appellee, Christopher Woods. Evidentiary hearings

were conducted over the space of several days. The court found that there

had been actual domestic violence by Appellee against Appellant, but

concluded that it was too remote in time. The trial court determined that

there was no basis to find an objectively reasonable risk of imminent

domestic violence.

      “A trial court's ruling on a petition for a domestic violence injunction is

reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Delgado v. Ortiz, 326 So. 3d 203, 203

(Fla. 5th DCA 2021). “In conducting this review, this Court focuses on

whether the trial court’s determination is supported by competent, substantial

evidence, with a focus on the legal sufficiency as opposed to the evidentiary

weight.” Id. Here, the trial court took testimony and had the ability to evaluate

the parties and their circumstances from a vantage point far superior to ours.

We conclude that the trial court’s decision is supported by competent,

substantial evidence and finding no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial

court in denying the petition for injunction, we are obliged to affirm.

      AFFIRMED.

WALLIS, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

                                       2