In Fazzaro v Fazzaro 38 Fla.L. Weekly 578, the District Court of appeal found that the trial court abused its discretion by giving the former wife final decision-making authority over matters involving the parties child should the parties be unable to agree then by including in the parenting plan provisions assigned to the wife ultimate responsibility for the child’s education and non-emergency healthcare.
In Schecter v Schecter 38 Fla L.Weekly D517, the former wife appealed a nonfinal order terminating her former husband’s agreed to and court ratified temporary alimony and attorneys fee obligation. The court found no abuse of discretion and the trial court’s decision to terminate the payment of the wife’s temporary alimony but found the order terminating the payment of her temporary fees to be without support.
In the case of Stefano Guizzardi v. Rosario Guizzardi, the former husband appealed a post dissolution order that granted the former wife the ability to relocate their children to Peru.The former husband’s argument regarding the appeal was that the trial court erred in applying the new relocation request statute instead of the correct statute governing all relocation requirements. The court had jurisdiction to hear the relocation request and the new law’s provisions did apply to the requirements of relocation. However, the wife was not granted the ability to relocate the children to Peru because the court did not find a substantial change in circumstances that would merit the modification of the final judgment which included a provision against the relocation of the minor children without the other parent’s full consent.
