Court Opinion

ID: 9408301
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 14:05:09.322212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:43.194649
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                          Opinion filed July 12, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-1392
                        Lower Tribunal No. 13-2364
                           ________________

                           Jessica Russell,
                        n/k/a Jessica Williams,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                            Joel Aronowicz,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ivonne
Cuesta, Judge.

     Jessica Russell, n/k/a Jessica Williams, in proper person.

      Angelena M. Root, P.A., and Angelena M. Conant (Fort Lauderdale),
for appellee.

Before SCALES, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.

     GORDO, J.
        The Mother 1 appeals a final judgment granting the Father’s 2 petition

for modification for timesharing and parental responsibility of their one minor

child. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). After entering a

final judgment in 2014, the trial court entered a temporary modification in

2017 awarding the Father majority timesharing and parental responsibility

due to the Mother’s failure to meet the minor child’s extensive mental health

needs. “An appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s custody decision

unless there is no substantial, competent evidence to support the decision.”

Roberts v. Diaz, 343 So. 3d 156, 157 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), reh’g denied (Aug.

17, 2022) (quoting Winters v. Brown, 51 So. 3d 656, 658 (Fla. 4th DCA

2011)). “[A] modification of a parenting plan and time-sharing schedule

requires a showing of a substantial, material, and unanticipated change of

circumstances.” § 61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2022).        To modify parental

responsibility “the best interest of the child shall be the primary

consideration.” § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2022). “The decision of the trial court

comes to this court clothed in a presumption of correctness, and the burden

is on the appellant to demonstrate reversible error.” Corridon v. Corridon,

317 So. 3d 1198, 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (quoting Chirino v. Chirino, 710

1
    Jessica Russell, n/k/a Jessica Williams.
2
    Joel Aronowicz.

                                        2
So. 2d 696, 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)). While this Court does not have the

benefit of a transcript here, the trial court’s order described that the Mother,

the Father, the Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”) and the minor child’s therapist Dr.

Howard Marcus, all testified at the hearing. The trial court’s well-written order

found there was a substantial, material and unanticipated change of

circumstances that warranted the timesharing and parental responsibility

modification and was in the best interest of the minor child. Finding no error

in the trial court’s detailed seventeen-page final judgment, as it thoroughly

considered the modification pursuant to the requisite twenty statutory factors

listed in section 61.13(3)(a)–(t), Florida Statutes, we affirm.

      Affirmed.

                                       3