In the aftermath of these decisions, Florida appellate courts have concluded the best interest of the child is insufficient to justify granting timesharing rights to any third party, even a stepparent or psychological parent. See Wakeman, 921 So.2d at 672; Lamaritata v. Lucas, 823 So.2d 316, 319 (Fla 2d DCA 2002) ("Contracts purporting to grant visitation rights to nonparents are unenforceable"); Taylor, 649 So.2d at 271-72 ("Florida courts do not recognize a claim for specific performance of a contract for visitation in favor of a non-parent"); Lane-Hepburn, 290 So.3d at 591 (quoting De Los Milagros Castellat v Pereira, 225 So.3d 368, 370 (Fla 3d DCA 2017) (Logue, J, concurring) (alterations in original)) ("The law does not empower the courts 'to award child visitation against the will of the birth, biological, or legal parent' even where the courts find 'that visitation [i]s in the best interest of the child because a non-parent qualifie[s] as a 'psychological parent.'").
Nonparents are not within the ambit of this constitutional right; written agreements granting visitation to nonparents are unenforceable in Florida. Id.; see also Springer v. Springer, 277 So. 3d 727, 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) ("[A] coparenting agreement between a biological parent and a nonparent is not enforceable under Florida Law."); Russell v. Pasik, 178 So. 3d 55, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ("[T]he law is clear: those who claim parentage on some basis other than biology or legal status do not have the same rights, including the right to visitation, as the biological or legal parents."); see also De Los Milagros Castellai v. Pereira, 225 So. 3d 368, 372 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (Logue, J., concurring) (noting that "the Florida Supreme Court expressly approved Wakeman’s holding that the lesbian partner who was the birth mother had parental rights protected by the constitution that prevailed over the claims of a partner who was neither the biological nor legal mother, even though the couple clearly intended to raise the children together"). [3] The trial court concluded that Stabler’s actions—such as allowing continued contact with the children and accepting child support and housing from Spicer—were such that Stabler was foreclosed from refusing to abide by the visitation rights set forth in the mediation agreement.
The law does not empower the courts "to award child visitation against the will of the birth, biological, or legal parent" even where the courts find "that visitation [i]s in the best interest of the child because a non-parent qualifie[s] as a ‘psychological parent.’ " De Los Milagros Castellat v. Pereira, 225 So. 3d 368, 370-71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (Logue, J., concurring). Simply stated, "Florida law makes no provision for visitation between unrelated parties."
However, a coparenting agreement between a biological parent and a nonparent is not enforceable under Florida Law. See Wakeman v. Dixon, 921 So.2d 669, 671-73 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (determining that a coparenting agreement between a same-sex couple was unenforceable under Florida law where a former partner sought a declaration of parental rights); see also D.M.T. v. T.M.H., 129 So.3d 320, 346 (Fla. 2013) (involving a partner who was the egg donor seeking parental rights and distinguishing Wakeman because the partner there who claimed parental rights was not a biological mother; recognizing that cases involving nonparents did not apply to biological parents); Russell v. Pasik, 178 So.3d 55, 59-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (relying upon Wakeman in determining that the time-sharing provisions of section 61.13 apply to parents, not nonparents, and determining that a "de facto" parent in a same-sex relationship had no standing to seek time-sharing); De Los Milagros Castellat v. Pereira, 225 So.3d 368, 372 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (Logue, J., concurring) ("In D.M.T., the Florida Supreme Court expressly approved Wakeman's holding that the lesbian partner who was the birth mother had parental rights protected by the constitution that prevailed over the claims of a partner who was neither the biological nor legal mother, even though the couple clearly intended to raise the children together." (citing D.M.T., 129 So.3d at 346 )).