Background
Keith George Barton, Jr. sought emergency custody relief concerning the parties’ minor child, who lived with the mother in Florida while the father lived in Texas. He alleged that the mother’s boyfriend had committed violence against or in the presence of the child and that the mother had resumed living with the boyfriend after previously representing that they no longer lived together.
At the hearing, the father, appearing pro se, attempted to question the mother about alleged violence involving the boyfriend, including an incident involving a gun and whether she had left the boyfriend because he was mean to the child. The circuit court sustained objections that the questions were outside the scope of the motion and denied both emergency motions in nearly identical orders.
The Court’s Holding
The First District vacated both nonfinal orders. Section 61.13(3)(m), Florida Statutes, requires courts evaluating modification of parenting plans to consider evidence of domestic violence and related child-safety concerns as part of the child’s best interests.
The trial court erred by preventing the father from presenting evidence about alleged domestic violence in the mother’s home. The appellate court also held that the orders did not specifically acknowledge in writing that the court considered the domestic-violence evidence already before it, including the child’s purported letter. That written acknowledgment is required even when the court denies modification and even if it does not credit the allegations.
Key Takeaways
- Domestic-violence evidence is a mandatory best-interests consideration in parenting-plan modification proceedings.
- A court may not exclude relevant alleged domestic-violence evidence based on an overly narrow view of a motion’s scope.
- When domestic-violence evidence is accepted, section 61.13(3)(m) requires a specific written acknowledgment that it was considered.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the statutory written-acknowledgment requirement for domestic-violence evidence from the broader written-findings requirement that applies when a court creates or modifies a time-sharing schedule. The former applies even when the court denies requested custody relief.
For family-law practitioners, the case underscores the need to develop evidence of violence affecting a child and to ensure that resulting orders expressly address that evidence.