Guida v. Guida, 870 So.2d 222 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2004). Court must make factual findings relative to alimony factors (not just list them).
Stern v. Stern, 907 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Court did not abuse discretion awarding Husband alimony in long term marriage to equalize income when parties lived beyond their needs.
Hull v. Hull, 910 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Error to require Husband to maintain life insurance policy as security for rehabilitative alimony without making required findings regarding necessity, cost and availability.
Russell v. Russell, 885 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Lump sum alimony OK to Wife when Wife’s parents made significant contributions and it “was important for wife and family to remain in the house”.
Error to reserve on alimony indefinitely to address special medical problem. If it is necessary to reserve jurisdiction, Court should establish a reasonable time limit on reservation. Herman v. Herman, 29 Fla. L. Weekly (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).
Whetsone v. Whetsone, 710 So.2d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The “good faith test” has been applied to allow for temporary relief from alimony based on a temporary change in circumstances so long as obligor not deliberately seeking to avoid paying alimony obligation.
Yitzhari v. Yitzhari, 906 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2005). Error to award 6 months of bridge the gap in lieu of rehabilitative alimony in 9 year marriage where Wife only had high school diploma, spoke little Spanish, been a stay at home mother for 9 years, and received no assets that could produce income. Written rehabilitative plan is not necessary if testimony is sufficient.
Esteva v, Rodriguez, 913 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2005). Court has authority to award nominal permanent alimony subject to modification in the future if the Wife’s medical issue worsens. However, this is discretionary. See Burdick v. Burdick, 601 So.2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
Byers v. Byers, 910 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). 13 year marriage in grey area with no presumption. Trial court’s award of bridge the gap award of lump sum alimony based on finding that wife played judicial game of chicken by not working did not properly consider alimony factors.
Nichols v. Nichols, 907 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). 14 year marriage falls in gray area and there is no presumption if favor or against an award of alimony.
Levy v. Levy, 900 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005). Permanent alimony ok in 2 year marriage to 32 year old wife who became disabled during the marriage.
Lakin v. Lakin, 901 So. 2d 186, (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) Permanent alimony awarded in 6 year marriage due to Wife’s health/emotional problems.
Yauch v. Yauch, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D263 (Fla. 2DCA 2005). Court must make factual findings relative to statutory criteria to support alimony award.
Stalnaker v. Stalnaker, 892 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1DCA 2005). Court cannot consider retirement benefits as marital asset subject to equitable distribution and as source of income to pay alimony.
Griffin v. Griffin, 906 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005) Error to impute full time income to husband where there was an absence of substantial competent evidence to support a finding Husband could find full time employment.
Custody / Visitation
Dudley v. Dudley, 899 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), Trial Court did not abuse discretion in awarding primary to Father upon finding that mother, who had been granting temporary primary violated previous visitation orders in order to frustrate the husband’s visitation and would in all likelihood continue to do so.
Hastings v. Risbee, (Fla. 2nd DCA 2004). Error to delegate judicial authority to parenting coordinator in adopting recommendations. Change of custody requires extraordinary burden (as opposed to change in visitation).
Coyne v. Coyne, 895 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 2DCA 2005). Abuse of discretion to award sole parental based on unresolved immigration status and Father’s ability to appreciate responsibility in shared parental duties and decision making when no detriment shown to child.
Richardson v. Richardson, 766 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 2000). Florida’s Constitution guarantees a right to privacy and such right includes a parent’s fundamental right to rear his or her child free from governmental intrusion and control. The state can satisfy the compelling state interest standard only when it acts to prevent demonstrable harm to a child. Accordingly, a trial court may not intrude upon the parent-child relationship by awarding visitation rights to a grandparent without evidence of a demonstrable harm to the child.
Ward v. Ward, 874 So. 2d 634. Burden of modification of grandparent custody, need not show substantial change of custody, only parent is fit and change would not be detrimental to child.
Greenhouse v. Greenhouse, 913 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Court in making undifferentiated temporary support must identify which portion of award is for alimony, which portion of for child support. See. Blum v. Blum, 769 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
Matthews v. Matthews, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D2417 (Fla. 4th DBA 2005) In the absence of explicit factual findings convering actual incomes attributable to the Husband and Wife, the amount and source of imputed income, the probable and potential earnings level, and the adjustments to income, the trial court’s final judgment was deficient.
Morrow v. Morrow, 913 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). In stablishing child support, court must either apply guidelines or give reasons for deviation.
Pike v. Pike, 932 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Must set alimony before you calculate child support.
Schram v. Schram, 932 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), Specific findings required to support source and amount of income. When imputing income, trial court must set forth factual findings as to probable and potential earnings level and adjustments to income.
Guerin v. DiRoma, 819 so.2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Before ordering a party to obtain life insurance, court is required to make findings regarding necessity, cost, availability and financial impact on obligor.
Department of Revenue v. Jackson, 846 So.2d 486 (Fla. 2003). Considering the question of whether incarcerated parents should be entitled to modify their child support payments, the trial court should defer consideration of an incarcerated parent’s motion for modification until the parent is released from custody. Upon the parent’s release, the trial court should then consider the motion in light of the contemporary circumstances of all the parties involved and enter a judgment appropriate at that time. This method eliminates the problem of vesting ever-increasing arrearage amounts because any payments accruing after the motion is filed may be modified, based upon the circumstances revealed at the hearing after the obligor’s release from prison. This provides flexibility for the court to address all issues and construct a judgment that will both recognize the support obligation and provide a realistic plan for payment.
Therefore, pursuant to section 61.14(1)(a), a parent seeking modification of child support payments because he or she is unable to pay the installments due to incarceration may file a petition to modify with the trial court that entered the original child support order. Thereafter, the trial court shall hold the petition in abeyance and place the matter on its inactive calendar for the term of the obligor parent’s incarceration. During this time, the petition is not subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute, and the relationship of the incarceration to support is good cause to delay activity. The support installments, although still outstanding according to the original payment schedule, do not accrue as a vested interest of the child to be reduced to judgment which cannot be altered.
Cartwright v. Cartwright, 902 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005). Error to require parties to pay private school tuition for children where no competent substantial evidence indicates the amount of tuition ordered is within the parties’ customary standard of living.
Substantial Parenting Adjustment:
If agreed visitation calls for in excess of 40% of visitation, this could be basis to modify child support. Keeley v. Keeley, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D839 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005)
Orsini v. Orsini, 909 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Defense of laches rejected where wife knew of Husband whereabouts and did not seek to enforce for 5 years, Husband had remarried and acquired new financial obligations. Husband did not prove prejudice. See Ticktin v. Kearin, 807 So.2d 659 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2001)
McLeod v. McLeod, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D2765 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). The failure for the trial court to identify the nature of all assets and liabilities and to establish a value for and distribute each marital asset and liability renders appellate court powerless to engage in meaningful appellate review.
McCarthy v. McCarthy, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D2748 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2005). Section 61.077, which establishes criteria for setoffs and credits upon sale of marital property does not authorize a rental credit to the out-of-possession co-tenant during the use of the marital home for the benefit of the minor children.
Kelly v. Kelly, 583 So.2d 667 (Fla. 1991). Good discussion of exclusive use and possession of marital home and credits.
Purpura v. Kelly, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D2481 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Error to fail to treat entire amount of husband’s accrued leave time as marital asset subject to equitable distribution.
Krakower v. Krakower, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D2445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) Error to include business as marital asset in equitabtle distribution when business was not in existence when dissolution filed.
Reed v, Reed, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D2299 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Former Spouse’s obligation to make mortgage payments I sin the nature of a settlement of property rights, rather than an obligation for support. (i.e. no contempt)
Zold v. Zold, 30 Fla. L. Weekly S626 (Fla. 2005). Undistributed income from sub-S is not income under 61, provided shareholder spouse (who has burden) to demonstrate that income was retained for corporate purpose rather than impermissibly retained to avoid alimony, child support or attorneys’ fees.
Rasmussen v. Rasmussen, 909 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005). Baseball player who signs agreement; “in the event of death or separation Wife gets premarital stuff” is not a gift until title passes. A mere intention to give in the future gives no obligation which the law will recognize or enforce.
Held v. Held, 912 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). TO be a marital asset, goodwill “must exist separate and apart from the reputation or continued presence of the marital litigant”.
Macci v. Macci, 904 So. 2d 517 , The determination of valuation dates is squarely within the trial court’s discretion.
Acker v. Acker, 904 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 2005); Court cannot distribute pension benefits and consider the pension income in determining alimony. Resolves conflict.
Reddell v. Reddell, 899 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Court must value all assets and liabilities for purposes of equitable distribution.
Rudderman v. Rudderman, 891 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 5DCA 2005). Mathematical error in equitable distribution should be corrected to prevent unequal distribution.
Rao-Nagineni v. Rao, 895 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Section 67.075(6) provides bright line rule for setting the date to be used in determining “classification” of marital and non-marital assets (the date of filing or the date of an executed agreement). Discretion left to trial courts is valuation.
Horvath v. Horvath, 893 So. 2d 649, (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). No abuse in awarding marital home to Husband who was in better financial position to carry house and make equalizing payment despite
Link v. Link, 897 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Commingling presumed gift.
Yitzhari v. Yitzhari, 906 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2005). Error to fail to award Wife enhancement in value of Husband’s pre-marital property which resulted from the Husband’s expenditure of marital funds and labor during the marriage. Once established that martial efforts/labor were used to enhance value, burden shifts to other party to show that some, if any, portion of enhancement would be exempt from equitable distribution.Modification
NW, SW & CW v. DCF, 915 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005). Post judgment dependency results in permanent placement of child with Father. Once dependency is discharged, the appropriate Court to modify dependency judgment is family court where dissolution occurred. To modify must show a substantial change of circumstances since dependency order.
McIntosh v. McIntosh, 915 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), A temporary modification is appropriate where the court determines that the obligor has suffered a reduction in income without deliberately seeking to avoid paying alimony and is acting in good faith to return his income to his previous level. When an inability to pay alimony arises, a court must suspend payments until the ability is restored, unless the parties inability to pay is a result of the intentional refusal to work or other willfully created inability. Where the change in circumstances is unintentional and not willful, the obligor’s alimony obligation should be reduced to be more commensurate with his current ability to pay.
Yeates v. Yeates, 915 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005), Clarifies Wade modified Gibbs holding requiring proof of detriment is not an element of the substantial change test necessary to modify child custody.
Buhler v. Buhler, 913 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Where there is a substantial parental adjustment to child support, and in the future the Father foes not regularly exercise 40% of overnight visits, Mother can seek modification of child support pursuant to section 61.30(11)(c) (which considers a noncustodial parent’s failure to exercise visitation as a substantial change in circumstances) and provides for retroactive application to the date the Father first failed to exercise at least that level of visitation. [emphasis added]
Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So.2d 928 (Fla. 2005), burden to modify rotating custody arrangement is substantial change in circumstances. Modifies Gibbs holding requiring proof of detriment is not an element of the substantial change test necessary to modify child custody. [emphasis added]
Gibbs v. Gibbs, 686 So.2d 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Changing custody requires extraordinary burden.
Virant v. Brunce, 899 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). May move for pendente lite suspension of visitation without modification.
Staats v. Staats, 899 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). To change custody you must show prior moral and relationship choices had a “direct adverse impact on the child”.
Sotomayor v. Sotomayor, 891 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2004). Mother’s relocation with child to foreign state, without more, is not substantial change in circumstances that would support modification of custody.
Kaschak v. Kaschak, (Fla.1st DCA 2004). 61.13(4)( c)(5) intended to alter burden for modification placed upon noncustodial parent who has been denied his/her visitation rights without proper cause. Requires three elements; 1) custody modification request, 2) showing visitation denied without “proper cause”, 3) a determination the change in custody is in child’s best interest.
Bazan v. Bazan, 902 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 3DCA 2005), Error to modify joint custody agreement and allow relocation when parents have acrimonious relationship, cannot communicate effectively, and Wife offered job with twice the income and could live rent free with her Mother. This did not warrant substantial change of circumstances.
Frelich v. Frelich, 897 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), In cases involving underemployment for purpose of seeking educational enhancement, standard for determining whether imputation is appropriate is best interest of support recipient (applies to alimony and child support).
Good 4th DCA Case:
Shafer v. Shafer, 898 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Relocation alone is not a substantial change of circumstances unless it is inconsistent with the terms of the final judgment. The child is anchored within a geographical radius wherein these visitation rights can be reasonable exercised. (Does not apply to those agreements that require open and liberal visitation, must have specific schedule.
Stephens v. Boswell, 915 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Res judicata applies to paternity judgment. Good discussion of intrinsic v. extrinsic fraud and 1.540 motions. Public policy not to deprive child of parental support based on facts that could have been easily determined prior to the entry of judgment.
Landers v. Smith, 906 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005), Modifies Privette, 617 So.2d 305 (Fla. 1993).
Parker v. Parker, 916 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The issue of paternity misrepresentation is a matter of intrinsic fraud, and therefore muse be raised within a year of the final judgment pursuant to Rule 1.540.
Schmigel v. Cumbi Concrete Co., 915 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). 57.105 21 day “safe-harbor” notice only required when party requests fee. Court may award fees pursuant to 57.105 without having to provide notice.
Ferrar v. Community Devlopers, Ltd, 917 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Under 57.105, to preserve error, you must object to failure to provide 21 day “safe-harbor” notice at trial. Otherwise, the objection is waived.
Demayo v. Demayo, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D2692 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2005), Client may waive homestead exemption by signing retainer that provides “…the client hereby knowingly, voluntarily and intelligenlty waives his right to assert the homestead exemption in the event a charging lien is obtained to secure balance of attorney’s fees and costs.”
Baime v. Baime, 912 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Section 63.1301, Florida Statutes does not allow income deduction order to be used solely for the payment of attorneys’ fees.
Miller v. Miller, 911 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Must plead fees before hearing in order to be awarded them.
Nisbeth v. Nisbeth, 568 So.2d 461 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1999). Ideally, when the court attempts to equally divide asserts, it is preferable to require each party to pay his or her own fees if earnings are substantially equivalent. However, where, as here, the record establishes that the parties’ past, present and anticipated earnings are not substantially equivalent, it may be inequitable to force the lower earning party to deplete her share of the otherwise equally divided assets to pay attorney’s fees.
Condren v. Bell, 853 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Exception to general rule that you can be awarded fees for litigating amount and entitlement as sanction.
Stok v. Stok, 888 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2004). You can be awarded fees under 57.105 if claim not supported by then existing facts or law.
Payne v. Payne, 481 so.2d 551 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1986), Stoler v. Stoler, 679 So.2d 837 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1996). Suit money authorized by 61.16 contemplates a broader range of expenses than the costs which are ordinarily taxable in other civil cases (i.e. Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil Actions).
Williams v. Williams, 892 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 3DCA 2005). Agreement provided party to pay child support and contained prevailing party language. Court erred by not awarding fees when failure to pay support was not “willful breach”.
Garcia v. Garcia, 900 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 3DCA 2005), where settlement agreement provided that attorney’s fees awarded to prevailing party in post judgment matters, error to award less than reasonable fees and costs due to inability to pay.
Lashkajani v. Lashkajani, 911 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 2005). Prevailing party provision regarding validity of prenuptial agreement is enforceable.
Franklin & Criscuolo v. Etter, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D1941 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2005). Charging liens attach to the proceeds of property distributions and have priority over judgment liens. However, a guardian ad litem’s fee may take precedence.
May v May, 908 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005). Error not to reserve on fees when reservation is stipulated.
30 day issue:
Caldwell v. Caldwell, 909 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005). 30 day rule in 1.525 applies to post judgment modification actions.
Family Law Rules of Procedure – Rule 12.525 Amendment, 897 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 2005). Rule 1.525 does not apply.
Wilkinson v. Wlkinson (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Reservation for fees tolls 30 day time limit in Rule 1.525.
Smith v. Smith, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D373 (Fla. 1DCA 2004). May serve motion for fees after court finds entitlement after 30 days if delay is excusable.
Waton v. Waton, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D 2390 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) Husband did not have duty to hire expert for purposes of valuing business for financial disclosure of prenuptial agreement.
Parties may waive right to seek modification is language in agreement clearly and unambiguously expresses waiver or of the interpretation of the agreement as a whole can lead to no other conclusion then waiver. Tapp v. Tapp, 29 Fla.L. Weekly D2683 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2004); Sasnett v. Sasnett, 683 S0.2d 177 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1996).
Romeo v. Romeo, 907 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005). Waiver of divorce rights need to be clear and expressed. Agreeing that one person would not contest divorce if filed does not waive any rights.
Procedure / Evidence
Porter v. Porter, 913 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2005). Proper to file modification in Dade County (different county then divorce)where residential parent and children reside their. No proceedings were pending in original court when modification was filed.
Murphy v. Murphy, 912 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2005). Court cannot enforce general master’s order while exceptions are pending.
Cargile-Schrage v. Schrage; 908 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) No abuse of discretion in denying wife’s motion for continuance, filed after 2 different attorneys withdrew and 3rd attorney would represent Wife only if judge continued trial.
Belk v. Belk, 903 SO. 2d 337 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005), Abuse to grant relief from judgment pursuant to 1.540(b)(2) based on Guardian’s report that should have been discovered before trial.
Ferencz v. Ferencz, 897 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005). Although hearing officer had authority to hear support enforcement issues, without consent of both parties, hearing officer had no authority to awards fees.
Error entering verbatim proposed final judgment without giving other party opportunity to object because there is an appearance trial court did not exercise independent judgment. Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So.2d 383 (Fla. 2004), Carlton v. Carlton, 29 Fla.L.Weekly D2652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
Cases that distinguish Berg-Perlow:
TD v. DCF, 924 SO. 2d 827 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005). There is no bright line test for reversing proposed final judgment signed by Court.
Chivari v. Ferrell, 909 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Court that signed Husband’s proposed Final judgment of dissolution not per se reversible. Court did change fee provision in judgment.
OBrien v. O’Brien, 899 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Intercepted Communications – Spyware program installed on computer that intercepted communications and Court properly excluded evidence obtained illegally.
Levitt v. Levitt, 699 So.2d 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), It is only when a term in a marital settlement agreement is ambiguous or unclear that the trial court can consider extrinsic evidence (i.e. parole evidence) as well as the parties’ interpretation of the contract to explain or clarify the ambiguous language.
Burckle v. Burckle, 915 SO. 2d 747 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005). Court cannot change custody as contempt remedy when not raised in motion and party failed to invoke the court’s jurisdiction to consider a change in custody.
Wilson v. Wilson, 918 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) Contempt order upheld because Wife interfered with visitation. Court upheld $12,000 fee award even though great disparity in income.
Buchanan v. Buchanan, 932 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005). To support finding of present ability to pay requires competent, substantial evidence.
Partridge v. Partridge, 912 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Court may force sell of homestead property if obligee “acts either egregiously, reprehensibly, or fraudently to justify sell of homestead property”.
Marcus v. Marcus, 902 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Error to hold Mother in contempt to take adequate steps to insure “father gets his visitation” where Wife would have to physically force children to return with Father.
Harris v. Harris, 900 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2005). Evidence of Husband’s more than comfortable lifestyle was sufficient evidence of Husband’s purge ability.
Prior child support order created presumption that husband had present ability and to purge himself of contempt. Lamar v. Lamar, 30 F.L.W. D* (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
Moncher v. Maine, 892 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), Court has authority to order anger management classes even when relief not requested.
Miller v. Miller, 891 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 4DCA 2005), Court cannot use discovery sanction to find ability to pay in contempt hearing.
East v. Lague, 893 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), Can seek contempt on obligation to pay college if intended as child support.
Brown v. Taylor, 889 so.2d 1016 (Fla. 2DCA 2005). A marriage that has been consummated cannot be annulled for fraud.
Brewer v. Solovsky, 899 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). When a non-final appeal is pending, Court cannot enter final judgment.
Recording face to face conversation without prior consent does constitute an interception of an oral communication in violation of section 934.03. Guilder v. Florida, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D860 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
Nielsen v. Musgrove, (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), A court may only change a minor’s last name over objection when the evidence establishes it is in the best interest of the child to do so.
Leave a Reply