HIV and AIDS

The court may not deny shared parental responsibility, custody, or visitation rights to a parent solely because that parent is or is believed to be infected with HIV; but the court may condition such rights upon the parent’s agreement to observe measures approved by the Centers for Disease Control of the U.S. Health and Rehabilitative Services for preventing the spread of HIV to the child.  [Fla Stat Section 61.13(6).]  Be sure to question your intense/aggressive st petersburg divorce attorneys focusing on Family Law, to find out if this has changed.

SEPARATION OF SIBLINGS

Siblings should not be separated except for compelling reasons and in the best interests of the children.  [Munson v. Munson, 702 So 2d 583 (Fla 2d DCA 1997); Wade v. Hirschman, 872 So 2d 952 (Fla 5th DCA 2004) (where court had initially ordered split rotating custody and it was established at modification proceeding that split rotating custody plan had failed and is doomed to future failure, court was free to redetermine custody based on considerations in section 61.13, as though it was making initial determination of custody; court was not required to apply substantial change in circumstances standard); Naidu v. Naidu, 854 So 2d 705 (Fla 3d DCA 2003) (where mother who had received primary custody of two children, entered into agreement with father for children to temporarily live with father in Arizona for one year, trial court did not abuse its discretion in extending temporary custody and maintaining status quo pending resolution of father’s petition; there was ample evidence, including testimony from children’s psychologist, that it was in younger child’s best interest not to be seperated from his older sister, whose relationship with her mother was difficult and whom mother agreed could stay with father, hence court’s order conformed to principle of causing least amount of disruption in child’s life.  Naidu v. Naidu, 854 So 2d 705 (Fla 3d DCA 2003), Where mother who had received primary custody of two children, entered into agreement with father for children to temporarily live with father in Arizona for one year, trial court did not abuse its discretion in extending the temporary custody and maintaining the status quo pending the resolution of the father’s petition.  There was ample evidence, including testimony from the children’s psychologist, that it was in the younger child’s best interest not to be separated from his older sister, whose relationship with her mother was difficult and whom the mother was difficult and whom the mother agreed could stay with the father, hence the court’s order conformed to the principle of causing the least amount of disruption in child’s life.

THE COURT CANNOT DIRECT PARTIES’ CHILDREN TO COMPLY

The parties’ children are not parties to the action, cannot be directed to follow the court’s order, and cannot be subjected to contempt powers of the court if they disobey the court’s order.  A very good attorney in child custody will be well aware of this, and shouldn’t charge you extra if they have to research this area of law.

 

Comments are closed.

Post Navigation