E. M. v. E. G.
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJuly 6, 2022
Docket2D21-1450
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
E.M.,
Appellant,
v.
E.G.,
Appellee.
No. 2D21-1450
July 6, 2022
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Kevin Bruning,
Judge.
Margaret H. White-Small, Longboat Key, for Appellant.
No appearance for Appellee.
CASANUEVA, Judge.
E.M., the Mother, appeals a circuit court order that approved
and adopted a magistrate's recommended order. The magistrate
recommended modifying the parties' parenting plan by giving E.G.,
the Father, sole parental responsibility, awarding him the majority
of time-sharing with the child, and directing that the Mother is to
have supervised visitation. We reject without discussion the
Mother's arguments that competent, substantial evidence did not
support the magistrate's findings pertaining to parental
responsibility and time-sharing and that the court abused its
discretion in adopting the recommendations. See R.S. v. S.K., 313
So. 3d 901, 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) ("An order granting or denying
a petition to modify child custody is presumed correct and generally
will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of an abuse of
discretion." (citing Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So. 2d 928, 935 (Fla.
2005))). We are not at liberty to reweigh the evidence and
substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact. See Porter v.
State, 788 So. 2d 917, 923 (Fla. 2001) (holding that appellate court
will not substitute its judgment for that of the circuit court on
issues involving the credibility of the witnesses). We agree,
however, that the circuit court abused its discretion in adopting the
recommendation that the Mother's visitation with her child must be
supervised.
2
A trial court has the discretion to limit or restrict a parent's
visitation where it is necessary to protect the welfare of the child.
Gavronsky v. Gavronsky, 403 So. 2d 627, 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Here, the magistrate made no factual findings as to the necessity for
supervised visitation, and there is no evidence in the record to
support the need for this restriction. Id. We therefore reverse that
portion of the order requiring the Mother to have supervised
visitation with the child.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
LaROSE and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
3