Court Opinion

ID: 9379358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-15 15:03:41.56987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:38.934662
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                              State of Florida

                       Opinion filed March 15, 2023.
      Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                           ________________

                            No. 3D21-2472
                       Lower Tribunal No. 21-12-P
                          ________________

                           Zachary Rankin,
                                 Appellant,

                                    vs.

                          Blaine Lounsbury,
                                 Appellee.

     An appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Sharon I.
Hamilton, Judge.

      Orshan, Spann, & Fernandez-Mesa, and Steven P. Spann, for
appellant.

      Nancy A. Hass, P.A., and Nancy A. Hass (Fort Lauderdale), for
appellee.

Before SCALES, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.

     MILLER, J.
         Appellant, Zachary Rankin, the father, challenges a final judgment

establishing paternity and a parenting plan. On appeal, the father contends

the trial court violated his due process rights by awarding appellee, Blaine

Lounsbury, the mother, sole decision-making authority as to the educational

and non-emergency medical needs of the minor child in the event the parties

are unable to agree. In her pleadings and other written submissions, the

mother specifically requested an order “[e]stablishing a parenting plan that

provides for shared responsibility of the minor child, if appropriate,” and

detailed the historical refusal by the father to cooperate in joint decisions.

Further, the issues precipitating this resistance were extensively litigated at

trial.    As the decision below is undeniably supported by competent,

substantial evidence, we affirm the well-reasoned order under review in all

respects and write only to commend the trial judge for her judicious handling

of this contentious and difficult case. See Cruz v. Domenech, 905 So. 2d

938, 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Moncher v. Maine, 892 So. 2d 1147, 1148–50

(Fla. 5th DCA 2005); see also Regan v. Regan, 660 So. 2d 1166, 1167 (Fla.

3d DCA 1995); Moses v. Moses, 347 So. 3d 385, 390 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021);

Schneider v. Schneider, 864 So. 2d 1193, 1194–95 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); §

61.13(2)(c)2.(a), Fla. Stat. (2021) amended by ch. 2021-139, § 1, Laws of

Fla.

                                      2
Affirmed.

            3