Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Custody
How does an award of temporary sole parental responsibility affect school designation? The school boundary designation in a parenting plan may conflict with an award of temporary sole parental responsibility, but the primary focus is the best interest of a child. This was an issue in the case Healy v. Healy, 4D2024-1087 (Fla. 4th DCA April 23, 2025).
Because of repeated incidents of the father being in vehicle accidents with the children while he was under the influence, the mother was awarded temporary sole parental responsibility for a period of about 20 months. During this period, she changed the children’s school to a school in Indian River County where she resided in part because she could no longer afford the private school they were attending, and she cited better services available in her school district for the children, one of which was suspected to have a developmental delay. The parties’ parenting plan provided “School Designation. For purposes of school boundary determination and registration, the higher ranked school based on residential designation shall be designated, provided parent resides in [S]aint [L]ucie [C]ounty [F]lorida.” The father argued that based on this provision, the mother’s act of enrolling the children in school in Indian River County was contemptuous.
The general magistrate held a hearing and determined the mother’s act of enrolling the children in school in Indian River County was not contemptuous in light of the reasons for doing so and because she had sole parental responsibility. The father moved to vacate the recommended order. While a hearing was pending on his motion to vacate, his shared parental responsibility was restored. The trial court then held a hearing on the motion to vacate and granted it, finding the mother ignored the provision in the parenting plan regarding the school boundary designation and ordered the children to be enrolled in a school in St. Lucie County. The order did not make any findings concerning the best interest of the children. The mother appealed.
The appellate court reversed, holding “Here, at the time Mother moved the minor children from the private school in St. Lucie County to the public school in Indian River County, she had sole, unfettered parental responsibility of the minor children by virtue of the February 2022 Order. This sole parental responsibility continued for twenty months, as confirmed by the stipulated July 2022 and November 2022 Orders. Those orders had the effect of temporarily superseding and modifying the original parenting plan with respect to parental responsibility, including paragraph IX’s requirements. Mother, therefore, had the authority to enroll the minor children in school in Indian River County, and the trial court’s finding to the contrary was erroneous.”
The court concluded “Although moot in light of our holding, we note that even if the trial court had the authority to order the minor children to return to school in St. Lucie County, it could not have done so without first considering the best interests of the minor children. This is because ‘[t]he ‘best interests of the child takes predominance over any agreement between the parents and must be independently determined by the trial court.’ Puglisi v. Puglisi, 135 So. 3d 1146, 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).”
Schedule your meeting with a Miami family law attorney to determine the next best steps in your case.