final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,
Indian River County; Robert L. Pegg, Judge; L.T. Case No.
Vanessa A. Lewis, Melbourne, pro se.
appearance for appellee.
former wife appeals a post-dissolution order requiring her to
"provide her physical address in order to have any
timesharing with the minor child." We reverse,
concluding that the trial court abused its discretion by
modifying the timesharing schedule as a sanction for the
former wife's failure to provide her physical address.
parties were divorced in 2014 by way of a final judgment of
dissolution of marriage. They have one minor child.
March 2016, the trial court entered an order modifying the
final judgment. In light of the former wife's relocation
to another state, the trial court adopted an out-of-state
Parenting Plan and gave the former husband majority
timesharing in Florida. The Parenting Plan required each
parent "to provide a residential, mailing, or contact
address" to the other parent, and to "notify the
other parent in writing within 24 hours of any changes."
former husband later filed a motion to hold the former wife
in contempt for her "failure to allow the child
appropriate communication with the Former Husband as well as
her failure to provide an address."
2016, the trial court granted the former husband's motion
for contempt "insofar as the Former Wife shall provide
her current address to the Clerk of Court."
2017, the former husband filed a motion for status of summer
timesharing, alleging that the former wife had failed to
provide her current address to the Clerk of Court and that
the former husband had no idea where the child would be
staying during the summer. The former husband thus argued
that "[t]he child should not travel or go with the
Former Wife without an address being disclosed where the
child would be staying" and that "the Former Wife
should be required to disclose her address to the Former
Husband and the Clerk of Court."
a hearing,  the trial court entered an order granting
the former husband's motion for status of summer
timesharing. The order states, in relevant part, that the
former wife "shall provide her physical address in order
to have any timesharing with the minor child." This
appeal, the former wife argues that the trial court abused
its discretion in denying her any timesharing with the minor
child unless she divulges her current address to the former
husband. The former wife admits that she did not give the
former husband her current address as required by the July
2016 order. However, the former wife asserts that the trial
court gave no consideration to the best interests of the
minor child or to Florida's public policy that each minor
child should have frequent and continuing contact with both
court's ruling on a timesharing issue is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion. Witt-Bahls v. Bahls, 193 So.3d
35, 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Discretion is abused "when
the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable,
" meaning that no reasonable person "would take the
view adopted by the trial court." Canakaris v.
Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 ...