Cancino v. Cancino
44 Fla. L. Weekly D453a
Third DCA; February 13, 2019
A husband sued his wife for divorce. Subsequently, the parties entered into a marital settlement agreement which provided that they would “share parental responsibility” for their children. The trial court entered a final judgment, and incorporated the marital settlement agreement. Several months later, the husband filed a motion for criminal contempt. He alleged that the wife had violated the “shared parental responsibility” order by, unilaterally, taking a child to the doctor for a fever, enrolling a child in a visual therapy program, and permitting a school to initiate an accommodation plan for a child who had been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. Did the trial court err in finding the wife guilty for violating the “shared parental responsibility” order?
- The Third DCA said “yes.”
- The criminal contempt finding violated the wife’s due process rights because the “shared parental responsibility” order was not sufficiently explicit or precise to put a party on notice of what she may or may not do.