Search Site
Menu
Modification of Timesharing Plan is inappropriate as Sanction for Contempt

Often the Court is faced with the question of what sanction they should impose on a parent who is found in contempt of court for a violation of a parenting plan.

As The Third District Court of Appeal recently found in the case of  Andre vs. Abreu, one sanction the Court cannot impose is a modification of a timesharing plan.

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed March 27, 2019.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
Nos. 3D17-1747 & 3D17-1107
Lower Tribunal No. 16-10767
________________
Keisha Andre,
Appellant,
vs.
Guillermo Manuel Abreu,
Appellee.
Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria Elena
Verde, Judge.
Martinez-Scanziani & Associates Law, P.A., and Denise Martinez
Scanziani, for appellant.
Guillermo Manuel Abreu, in proper person.
Before EMAS, C.J., and LOGUE and HENDON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.

Appellant Keisha Andre appeals the trial court’s order finding her in
contempt. On its face, the Order impermissibly modifies the parties’ timesharing as
a sanction against Ms. Andre. See De Castro v. De Castro, 957 So. 2d 1258, 1259-
61 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (concluding that modification of a timesharing plan is
inappropriate as a sanction for contempt); see also Duncan v. Brickman, 233 So.
3d 477, 480-81 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); Tarter v. Tarter, 960 So. 2d 862, 863-64 (Fla.
1st DCA 2007). At the time the Order was entered, there was no pending petition
to modify or finding made that modification was in the best interest of the minor.
See De Castro, 957 So. 2d at 1261 (citing Pelliccia v. Arce, 867 So. 2d 619, 620-21
(Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reversing order modifying custody because proceedings were
commenced upon a motion for contempt and there was no finding that
modification was in the best interest of the child); see also Albert v. Rogers, 57 So.
3d 233, 236-37 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). This error is clear on the face of the Order.
See Ferguson v. Ferguson, 54 So. 3d 553, 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (citing Casella
v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (finding reversible error on
the face of the amended judgment alone).
Reversed and remanded.

Full Opinion of the Court  https://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D17-1747.pdf

Our Attorneys
Testimonials
  • "Could not have asked for a better attorney. I dealt with an extremely difficult and tedious divorce. Gary and his team were always thorough and fully prepared. Always at the top of their game and always treated me as a top priority as they do all their clients. Recommend Gary Weiner as the attorney to handle your divorce if you need it done right!!!! " - Zachary B.,★★★★★

  • "Scott Weiss is always knowledgeable and reachable when I have a question. I have referred clients to him and will continue to refer clients!" - Ian S.,★★★★★

  • "Scott is a professional who is well-liked, collegial in a highly adversarial field. He has been mentored by an excellent lawyer and although still a younger lawyer he is fast gaining experience in complex matrimonial matters. He has moved beyond second chair to handling matters on his own. He is a pleasure to work with." - Anonymous,★★★★★

  • "Scott is not only a great lawyer, but he is also very involved in the community." - Anonymous,★★★★★