Carroll v. Carroll

Citations: 593 So. 2d 1131; 1992 WL 20015Docket: 91-01531

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; February 6, 1992; Florida; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, reversed a trial court's decision that temporarily suspended Ira Greene Briggs Carroll Sr.'s child support obligation due to his son Hunter Carroll's refusal to visit him. The appellate court emphasized that a noncustodial parent's child support obligation should not cease simply because the child declines visitation. The case stemmed from ongoing conflict between the Carrolls following their divorce, which included a motion filed by sixteen-year-old Hunter to terminate his visits with his father, granted by the trial court. The appellate court recognized the trial judge's challenging position but reiterated that child support cannot be conditioned on visitation rights, despite the unique circumstances of this case where Hunter, described as mature and articulate, actively resisted visits. The court noted that there were no findings indicating that Jane Carroll influenced her son’s decision, which left the question of her involvement unresolved. Florida statutes provide remedies for noncustodial parents denied visitation by custodial parents, highlighting the importance of upholding child support obligations regardless of visitation issues. The court concluded that child support would be reinstated automatically once visitation resumed.

Natural parents have a mutual obligation to support their minor child, regardless of marital dissolution, as established under section 61.13(1)(a). Even if animosity arises between a parent and child during the marriage, the duty to support remains. Courts typically recognize that a parent who provides support is entitled to visitation rights; however, visitation can be restricted for the child's best interests due to various factors. Notably, the trial court cannot condition visitation on the payment of child support but may limit visitation in specific circumstances.

The court referred to past cases, such as Putnam v. Putnam, which allowed suspension of support based on a child's refusal to comply with visitation terms. However, subsequent legislative changes in Chapter 61 have seemingly overruled this precedent. Furthermore, while the court acknowledged that a child's contemptuous behavior could justify temporary support suspension, it rejected the notion that a parent's support duty could be negated by a child's actions not influenced by the other parent. The ruling emphasizes that such an approach would unfairly penalize the other parent financially.

The situation highlights the detrimental impact of parental conflict on children, as noted by the guardian ad litem. The court expressed concern over the loss of quality time between the father and son due to ongoing legal disputes. Ultimately, the court reversed the trial court's decision and directed that all suspended child support payments be ordered.

Legislation acknowledges that both parents have an obligation to financially support their child, independent of visitation rights, as reflected in Florida Statutes § 61.13(1)(a), (4)(b), and (c). Even if animosity arises between a parent and child during marriage, the obligation to support the child remains intact. The court recognizes that while a parent's support generally entitles them to visitation, there are circumstances where visitation may not be advisable for sociological or psychiatric reasons. Courts, including the Third District, have ruled that child support cannot be conditioned on visitation rights, although visitation may be limited for the child's best interests.

Past cases, such as Putnam v. Putnam, permitted the suspension of support when a child refused visitation, but this interpretation is thought to be superseded by later amendments to Chapter 61. Additionally, while some courts have suggested that a child's disrespectful conduct could justify temporary suspension of support, this view is contested. It is argued that such conduct, unless instigated by a parent, should not relieve the other parent of their support duties, as it unfairly penalizes the child’s needs. The emphasis is placed on the detrimental impact of parental conflict on children, highlighting the loss of quality time between a child and parent. The court ultimately reverses the trial court's decision and directs the reinstatement of all suspended child support payments.