You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Ducharme v. Ducharme

Citations: 903 So. 2d 390; 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 9622; 2005 WL 1457694Docket: No. 2D03-5651

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; June 22, 2005; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Debra R. Ducharme, the Former Wife, is appealing the second amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The appellate court found that the trial court improperly required a written order or consent from both parties before allowing the minor child to be removed from the state for more than ten days. This requirement, as it stands, would disrupt the court-ordered visitation schedule, which allocates each parent two continuous two-week periods during the summer. As a result, the appellate court reversed this specific requirement and directed that it be removed from the judgment. The court affirmed the remainder of the judgment without further comment. The decision is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for action consistent with this ruling. Judges Fulmer and Wallace concurred.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Review and Remand

Application: The appellate court reversed the specific requirement regarding out-of-state travel and remanded the case for modification of the judgment consistent with this ruling.

Reasoning: As a result, the appellate court reversed this specific requirement and directed that it be removed from the judgment.

Impact on Visitation Rights

Application: The provision requiring mutual consent for out-of-state travel was determined to interfere with the established visitation schedule, leading to its reversal.

Reasoning: This requirement, as it stands, would disrupt the court-ordered visitation schedule, which allocates each parent two continuous two-week periods during the summer.

Modification of Child Custody Orders

Application: The appellate court evaluated whether the trial court's requirement for a written order or consent from both parties for out-of-state travel was appropriate, concluding it was not.

Reasoning: The appellate court found that the trial court improperly required a written order or consent from both parties before allowing the minor child to be removed from the state for more than ten days.