Background
Father initially obtained sole custody of the parties’ child in 2023 after raising concerns about Mother’s housing, partying, and parenting. A later temporary order limited Mother to supervised contact, and a February 2024 final parenting plan continued that restriction while giving Father primary custody.
In 2025, Mother sought modification, asserting that she had obtained stable housing and addressed the conduct underlying the restrictions. Father opposed the request and sought to reduce Mother’s contact, arguing that her inconsistent visits harmed the child, who he said had autism. Following a February 2026 hearing, the family court found that Mother had made substantial improvements and implemented a transition to alternating-weekend unsupervised overnight parenting time, while retaining Father’s primary custody.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the family court did not reversibly err in crediting Mother’s testimony that she had stable housing and had remedied her prior issues, even though Father argued she lacked documentary support and that the court had improperly considered information from a separate case involving Mother’s older child.
The appellate court also upheld the finding of a substantial change in circumstances. Credibility and evidentiary weight were for the family court, and the record supported its conclusion that Mother’s circumstances had materially improved. The family court also permissibly declined to find that the child’s alleged autism warranted reducing Mother’s parenting time because Father supplied no medical, educational, or expert evidence tying visits with Mother to regression.
Key Takeaways
- Family courts may credit a parent’s testimony about changed circumstances without documentary corroboration.
- Appellate courts defer to family-court credibility findings absent clear error or an abuse of discretion.
- A parent seeking restrictions based on a child’s diagnosis needs competent supporting evidence, not only lay testimony.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the high level of deference afforded to family courts in parenting-time modifications. It also confirms that improvement in a formerly restricted parent’s housing and conduct can support a gradual move to unsupervised contact without requiring equal custodial allocation.