Opinion
No. 2D21-1236
03-04-2022
T.A., Appellant, v. A.S., Appellee.
Benndrick C. Watson of Young Esquire Law, PLLC, Tampa, for Appellant. David M. Scott of Law Office of David Scott, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee.
Benndrick C. Watson of Young Esquire Law, PLLC, Tampa, for Appellant.
David M. Scott of Law Office of David Scott, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee.
SLEET, Judge.
T.A., the Father, appeals the final judgment of paternity in which the trial court determined him to be the biological father of the minor child C.S. and, among other things, set a timesharing schedule. The Father argues, and the Mother concedes, that the trial court erred by improperly basing the multiphase timesharing schedule on the completion of contingent events. Because the timesharing plan applies an impermissible prospective-based best interest analysis, we reverse that portion of the order. We find no merit in the Father's remaining arguments on appeal and affirm the order in all other respects.
The timesharing schedule that was issued in the final judgment is a prospective-based plan that includes four separate phases that allow for the Father's timesharing to be gradually increased based upon the completion of certain events and without judicial intervention. However, this court has disapproved of such prospective-based parenting plans. See Natali v. Natali , 313 So. 3d 958, 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) ("This automatically graduated timesharing arrangement is thus contrary to the reasoning in Arthur disapproving a prospective-based best interest analysis on the basis that the factors ‘could change within the extended time period given by the court.’ " (quoting Arthur v. Arthur , 54 So. 3d 454, 459 (Fla. 2010) )).
Accordingly, we reverse only the portion of the final judgment relating to the multiphase timesharing schedule which increases the Father's timesharing only after the completion of certain events. See id. The Father retains the right to petition the court for a modification at any time. However, the trial court's best interest determination cannot be prospective-based. See id.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CASANUEVA and KELLY, JJ., Concur.