Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Ezp v. Hp, Jr.
Citations: 756 So. 2d 188; 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4196; 2000 WL 346141Docket: 3D99-1819
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; April 5, 2000; Florida; State Appellate Court
E.Z.P. (mother) appeals a decision from the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, which ordered H.P. Jr. (father) to deposit child support payments into a trust for their son, H.P. III, and referred the case to dependency court. The mother initially filed for protection against domestic violence in 1989, with the marriage dissolving in 1990, granting her primary custody of their son. Allegations from the mother in 1995 claimed the father engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with the child, leading to a temporary injunction against him. Investigations by various agencies found no evidence of abuse, although concerns about the mother influencing the child negatively were noted. In 1997, the court awarded the mother sole parental responsibility and established a permanent injunction against the father from contacting the child. The father filed multiple motions regarding custody and compliance with court orders, with a hearing resulting in a finding that the mother had hindered the father's relationship with the child. Subsequently, the court ordered child support payments to be held in trust until either the child has contact with the father or turns eighteen. The relevant Florida statute emphasizes that a custodial parent’s refusal to comply with visitation rights does not exempt the noncustodial parent from child support obligations. In *State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Sandidge*, 651 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), the court affirmed that visitation rights and child support obligations are distinct under Florida law, emphasizing that a non-custodial parent's inability to exercise visitation does not exempt them from paying child support. The case involved a father who has been permanently prohibited from contacting his minor child, yet the trial court mandated counseling for the child to potentially facilitate future visitation. The trial judge expressed concerns about the mother undermining this process, leading to an order diverting child support payments into a trust, which the appellate court found violated section 61.13(4)(b) and reversed. Additionally, the trial court referred the case to dependency court to evaluate whether the mother's actions constituted child abuse under section 39.201, Florida Statutes (1999). The appellate court determined that this referral was not subject to review as no specific evidence was required for such a referral. The court noted the absence of a judicial ruling regarding allegations of sexual abuse against the father and mandated an evidentiary hearing to assess the validity of these allegations before considering visitation rights. If visitation is deemed in the child's best interest, the court will then address the mother's purported alienation efforts, allowing for appropriate disciplinary actions if necessary. The order was reversed and remanded with specific instructions for further proceedings.