Andrea Picard v. Jonathan Picard
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledDecember 21, 2022
Docket2D21-3500
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
ANDREA M. PICARD,
Appellant,
v.
JONATHAN R. PICARD,
Appellee.
No. 2D21-3500
December 21, 2022
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Kevin R. Bruning,
Judge.
Margaret H. White-Small, Longboat Key, for Appellant.
Jorge Martinez and Peter J. Mackey, of Mackey Law Group, P.A.,
Bradenton, for Appellee.
ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge.
Andrea Picard (the mother) appeals the trial court's final judgment
on parenting plan and timesharing. She contends that the court erred
by (i) adopting a timesharing schedule that gives Jonathan Picard (the
father) weekends with their four children during the school year; (ii)
awarding the father ultimate decision-making authority over the
children's extracurricular activities; and (iii) failing to attach a copy of the
parenting plan to the final judgment.
Because competent substantial evidence supported the trial court's
timesharing schedule, we affirm with regard to that schedule without
further comment. The mother's two other contentions, however, have
merit.
First, as the father concedes, because he did not ask for ultimate
decision-making authority over the children's extracurricular activities, it
should not have been awarded to him. See Booth v. Hicks, 301 So. 3d
369, 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) ("By granting the Father relief he did not
request in his petition, the trial court violated the Mother's due process
rights and abused its discretion."); Stover v. Stover, 287 So. 3d 1277,
1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (concluding that the trial court erred by
awarding exclusive timesharing to a mother who only requested partial
timesharing). Second, although the final judgment adopts the mother's
parenting plan, it incorporates that plan only by reference to its trial
exhibit number and also includes several modifications to that plan's
provisions. Thus, as it stands, there is no single document the parties
can look to that comprises the entire approved plan.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to award the
parties shared decision-making authority as to extracurriculars and to
approve and attach to the final judgment a copy of a parenting plan
consistent with this opinion. See Sadlak v. Trujillo, 336 So. 3d 1275,
1280 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (directing the trial court to approve and attach
the parenting plan to the final judgment); Magdziak v. Sullivan, 185 So.
3d 1292, 1293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (reversing final judgment that
adopted the father's recommended parenting plan without attaching it).
In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with instructions.
NORTHCUTT and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
2