Florida Parental Responsibility: Who Makes Decisions for your Child?
Florida parental responsibility law answers one of the most important questions in a divorce or paternity case: Who has the legal authority to make decisions for the child?
The answer is usually both parents. Florida law generally requires parents to confer and jointly decide major issues affecting their child’s welfare. That does not mean every meal, bedtime, playdate, or household rule requires the other parent’s approval. It also does not permit one parent to make a major decision unilaterally simply because consultation is inconvenient or the other parent disagrees.
The hard cases arise along the boundary. Is changing schools a major decision? What about therapy, psychiatric medication, religious education, travel sports, a driver’s license, or an expensive extracurricular activity? When does a parent’s repeated refusal to cooperate justify contempt? When does a pattern of unilateral decisions become a substantial and material change in circumstances supporting modification?
Mockler Leiner Law, P.A. represents parents in contested and negotiated parental-responsibility cases arising from divorce, paternity, temporary relief, post-judgment modification, enforcement, contempt, domestic violence, relocation, and appellate proceedings. These cases require more than labels. They require a precise understanding of the existing parenting plan, the disputed decision, the available evidence, and the remedy the court can legally order.
What Does Parental Responsibility Mean Under Florida Law?
Florida law generally separates parenting issues into three related but distinct subjects:
A parenting plan establishes the rules governing the parents’ relationship with their child. Time-sharing determines when the child will be with each parent. Parental responsibility determines how decisions concerning the child will be made.
Under section 61.046(14), Florida Statutes, a parenting plan is a document governing the parents’ relationship as it relates to decisions concerning the child and must include a time-sharing schedule. The plan may address education, health care, and the child’s physical, social, and emotional well-being.
Section 61.046(17) defines shared parental responsibility as a court-ordered relationship in which both parents retain full parental rights and responsibilities and confer so that major decisions affecting the child’s welfare are determined jointly.
Section 61.046(18) defines sole parental responsibility as a court-ordered relationship in which one parent makes decisions regarding the child.
The distinctions matter. A parent may have equal time-sharing but lack ultimate authority over education. A parent may have substantially fewer overnights while retaining an equal voice in major decisions. A parent may also have shared parental responsibility while possessing ultimate authority over one specifically identified subject.
For a broader discussion of schedules, overnights, and parenting-plan litigation, review our page on Florida child custody and parenting plans.
What Must a Florida Parenting Plan Address?
Section 61.13, Florida Statutes, requires a parenting plan to describe how the parents will handle the daily tasks associated with raising the child. It must contain a time-sharing schedule and designate responsibility for health care, school-related matters, the address used for school-boundary and registration purposes, and other activities. It must also address parent-child communication and authorized exchange locations.
A generic statement that the parents will “share responsibility” may satisfy the label but fail the family. A workable parenting plan should identify the decisions that require consultation, how information will be exchanged, how quickly a parent must respond, what happens during an emergency, and how a genuine deadlock will be resolved.
Vagueness creates two predictable problems. First, the parents may disagree about whether a decision required joint approval. Second, even obvious misconduct may be difficult to punish through contempt if the order did not clearly state what the parent was required to do.
Florida’s Presumption in Favor of Shared Parental Responsibility
Section 61.13(2)(c)2 directs the court to order shared parental responsibility unless the court finds that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child. It is more than a casual preference. Shared responsibility is the statutory starting point, and sole parental responsibility requires the court to depart from that starting point based on the evidence.
When deciding whether shared responsibility would be detrimental, the court must consider domestic violence, sexual violence, abuse, abandonment, neglect, imminent danger, and any other relevant circumstances. The statute creates a rebuttable presumption of detriment in certain cases involving a qualifying domestic-violence conviction, circumstances identified in section 39.806(1)(d), or specified sexual offenses involving a victim under eighteen.
A criminal conviction or injunction is not always necessary. Section 61.13 expressly requires the court to consider evidence of domestic violence or child abuse whether or not anyone was convicted and whether or not an injunction was entered.
The court may also consider severe parental alienation, dangerous instability, chronic interference with necessary treatment, substance misuse affecting parental judgment, refusal to protect the child, or another pattern demonstrating that requiring joint decisions would expose the child to harm. Ordinary disagreement, resentment, or poor communication does not automatically establish detriment.
The Equal Time-Sharing Presumption Is a Different Presumption
Florida also has a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing is in a child’s best interests. A parent seeking a different schedule must rebut that presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.
That presumption concerns the allocation of parenting time. It does not automatically determine decision-making authority.
A court can order equal time-sharing while giving one parent ultimate educational authority. It can order unequal time-sharing while requiring the parents to make all major decisions jointly. It can also determine that shared decision-making is detrimental without eliminating every form of contact between the child and the other parent.
Parents should therefore avoid treating “50/50,” “shared custody,” and “shared parental responsibility” as interchangeable terms. They are not. Our discussion of Florida’s equal time-sharing presumption explains the separate rules governing the child’s schedule.
The Three Parental-Responsibility Structures in Florida
Shared parental responsibility
Under ordinary shared parental responsibility, both parents retain full parental rights and responsibilities. They must confer and attempt to reach agreement before making a major decision affecting the child’s welfare.
Neither parent has an automatic tie-breaking vote. One parent cannot satisfy the consultation requirement merely by announcing a completed decision or sending an ultimatum with an artificially short deadline. Meaningful consultation ordinarily requires exchanging the relevant information, allowing a reasonable opportunity to respond, considering the other parent’s position, and making a good-faith effort to reach agreement.
Shared parental responsibility does not require harmony. It requires participation.
If the parents reach a genuine impasse and neither has ultimate authority over the disputed subject, the disagreement may need to be presented to the court. In Gerencser v. Mills, 4 So. 3d 22 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), and Dickson v. Dickson, 169 So. 3d 287 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015), the appellate courts explained that parents who cannot agree on a major decision should obtain judicial resolution rather than resort to unilateral action.
Shared parental responsibility with ultimate decision-making authority
Section 61.13 permits a court to maintain shared parental responsibility while granting one parent ultimate responsibility over specific aspects of the child’s welfare. The statute expressly identifies education and health care and permits the court to address other responsibilities unique to the particular family.
Ultimate authority is a defined tie-breaking mechanism. The parents still share parental responsibility and must confer. If they cannot agree after a meaningful exchange, the parent holding ultimate authority makes the final decision within the designated area.
The court may grant one parent ultimate authority over education, nonemergency health care, a particular course of treatment, travel, extracurricular activities, or another concretely identified subject. It may also divide areas between the parents—for example, assigning ultimate educational authority to one parent and ultimate health-care authority to the other—when the evidence and the child’s best interests support that structure.
The authority must be specific. In McClure v. Beck, 212 So. 3d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), the court rejected open-ended language giving one parent final authority over major decisions “including, but not limited to” education, health care, and other responsibilities. The language effectively left every possible decision within that parent’s control.
In De La Fe v. De La Fe, 332 So. 3d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), the Second District held that unrestricted tie-breaking authority over every disagreement was tantamount to sole parental responsibility. A court cannot avoid the findings required for sole responsibility by labeling an across-the-board award “shared” and adding a universal tie-breaker.
The evidence must also support each category awarded. In Fazzaro v. Fazzaro, 110 So. 3d 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), the Second District reversed an award of ultimate authority over education and nonemergency health care because the evidence did not justify those allocations. By contrast, Schneider v. Schneider, 864 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), approved specifically identified authority where the evidence demonstrated serious conflict and interference involving teachers and a psychologist.
The proper question is not merely whether the parents fight. The court should determine what they fight about, whether the disagreement affects the child, which parent has demonstrated better judgment in that particular area, and whether a targeted allocation will solve the actual problem.
Sole parental responsibility
Sole parental responsibility places decision-making authority with one parent. It is an across-the-board allocation, not a subject-by-subject tie-breaking provision.
That distinction is critical. A court does not award “sole parental responsibility over education” while leaving everything else shared. If one parent should retain the final say only over education, the correct structure is ordinarily shared parental responsibility with ultimate educational authority.
In Meyers v. Meyers, 295 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020), the Second District reversed an award of “sole parental responsibility” over education. The court explained that responsibility for a specific aspect of the child’s welfare may be allocated to one parent only within the structure of shared parental responsibility. Sole parental responsibility, by contrast, is comprehensive.
Florida appellate courts also require a specific finding that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child before sole parental responsibility may be awarded. See Meyers; Musgrave v. Musgrave, 290 So. 3d 536 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); and Evans v. Woodard, 898 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
Sole parental responsibility does not necessarily terminate the other parent’s time-sharing. Section 61.13 permits sole responsibility with or without time-sharing. The court must separately decide what contact, supervision, restrictions, exchanges, or safety provisions serve the child’s best interests.
Sole responsibility also does not automatically eliminate the other parent’s access to information. Section 61.13(2)(c)7 generally gives both parents access to medical, dental, and school records, including direct access to providers, unless a court order specifically restricts or revokes those rights.
What Is a Major Decision Affecting a Child?
Florida’s statutes do not provide an exhaustive list of major decisions. The language of the parenting plan and the practical consequences of the proposed action are often decisive.
A decision is more likely to be major when it has a substantial, continuing, expensive, dangerous, or cross-household effect on the child. Common examples include changing schools, beginning home education, approving a significant special-education plan, selecting a therapist or specialist, authorizing nonemergency surgery, changing psychiatric medication, making formal religious-education decisions, enrolling the child in a demanding travel activity, or making a decision that materially affects the other parent’s time or financial obligations.
Context matters. A casual music lesson during one parent’s time may be routine. A competitive program requiring substantial tuition, interstate travel, and rehearsals during the other parent’s weekends is different. Buying a child ordinary sports equipment is different from enrolling the child in a high-risk activity that imposes continuing obligations on both households.
A parenting plan should address foreseeable pressure points instead of relying on broad labels that will need to be litigated later.
What Are Day-to-Day Parenting Decisions?
Day-to-day decisions are the ordinary choices necessary to care for the child while the child is with a parent. They commonly involve meals, bedtimes, homework supervision, chores, routine clothing, ordinary entertainment, minor purchases, reasonable discipline, local transportation, and routine social activities.
Each parent ordinarily controls those matters during that parent’s time-sharing. Shared parental responsibility does not require a conference before serving dinner or selecting a bedtime.
A routine decision can become a major decision when its consequences extend beyond one household or conflict with a specific provision of the parenting plan. A parent may select dinner but may not disregard a medically necessary diet. A parent may arrange a playdate but may not expose the child to a person whom the parenting plan identifies as dangerous. A parent may impose reasonable discipline but may not violate an order prohibiting corporal punishment.
Florida’s approved parenting-plan form also recognizes that either parent may make a genuine emergency decision affecting the child’s health or safety while the child is in that parent’s care. An emergency is not a convenient label for avoiding consultation about a foreseeable, nonurgent decision. The other parent should ordinarily be notified as soon as reasonably possible.
School and Educational Decisions
School selection is one of the clearest examples of a major decision. It affects the child’s schedule, transportation, peer group, curriculum, activities, continuity, and frequently the operation of the entire time-sharing plan.
A parent sharing educational responsibility should not withdraw a child from one school and enroll the child elsewhere over the other parent’s objection. In Dickson, the parents reached an impasse after one parent moved and unilaterally changed the child’s school. The Fifth District explained that the court was required to resolve the dispute according to the child’s best interests.
In Lane v. Lane, 254 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), the court distinguished taking a child for an admission assessment from actually changing the child’s school. The trial court could resolve the parents’ school impasse without treating every preliminary application step as contempt.
Educational cases are won with evidence, not competing declarations that one school is “better.” Relevant proof may include academic performance, attendance, testing, special needs, available services, transportation, tuition, financial ability, continuity, application deadlines, class size, extracurricular opportunities, and the effect of each option on the time-sharing schedule.
Parents should seek judicial resolution before an enrollment deadline makes the dispute practically irreversible.
Medical, Dental, and Mental-Health Decisions
Routine first aid and genuine emergency treatment ordinarily cannot wait for a parental conference. Nonemergency treatment with substantial or continuing consequences is more likely to require consultation.
Taking a child with a fever to an established pediatrician is different from selecting a new specialist, authorizing surgery, beginning a long-term treatment program, changing psychiatric medication, or rejecting a provider’s material recommendation.
Florida law contains an important mental-health provision. Under section 61.13(2)(b)3.a., when the parents share responsibility for health-care decisions, either parent may consent to the child’s mental-health treatment unless the parenting plan states otherwise.
That statutory provision makes careful drafting essential. Parents who want joint consent before continuing therapy, psychological testing, psychiatric medication, or a change in providers should address the issue expressly. The ability to consent to treatment does not necessarily authorize a parent to conceal the treatment, violate a specific consultation requirement, deny access to records, or impose unauthorized financial obligations on the other parent.
What Happens When Parents Cannot Agree?
Shared parental responsibility does not mean the first parent to act wins.
When the parents reach a genuine impasse, they may continue a structured exchange of information, use family law mediation, consult a parenting coordinator within the limits of the referral order, or ask the court to resolve the particular dispute.
A parenting coordinator may help the parents communicate, exchange information, implement the parenting plan, and resolve lower-level disputes. A parenting coordinator is not a substitute judge and cannot independently reallocate parental responsibility or make another substantive modification of the parenting plan.
There is also a significant procedural difference between asking the court to decide one immediate question and asking the court to permanently change decision-making authority. A motion asking the judge to select a school may present a discrete impasse. A request to give one parent permanent ultimate educational authority changes the parenting plan and may require a properly pleaded modification claim, proof of a substantial and material change in circumstances, and a determination that the requested modification is in the child’s best interests.
Notice and due process matter. In Greenwood v. Greenwood, 406 So. 3d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025), the Third District reversed an order granting ultimate educational authority where that relief had not been requested in the motion and the affected parent lacked a fair opportunity to address it. A court cannot dramatically rewrite parental authority merely because an immediate dispute presents a difficult practical problem.
Evidence and Trial Strategy in a Parental-Responsibility Case
“The other parent refuses to co-parent” is a conclusion. A court needs the facts beneath it.
A persuasive case identifies the decision that had to be made, the information each parent received, the positions exchanged, the response or lack of response, the action ultimately taken, and the effect on the child. The goal is to demonstrate a pattern and its consequences without burying the judge in every unpleasant message the parents have exchanged.
Useful evidence may include:
The parenting plan, final judgment, and later enforcement or modification orders
Emails, text messages, and parenting-application communications
School records, report cards, attendance information, evaluations, and teacher communications
Medical, dental, therapy, and treatment records
Appointment histories and communications with providers
Activity schedules, contracts, registration documents, travel requirements, and costs
Evidence of missed deadlines, concealed information, unilateral enrollment, canceled treatment, or interference
Testimony from teachers, doctors, therapists, coaches, or other witnesses with personal knowledge
A detailed chronology demonstrating whether the conduct was isolated or recurring
A realistic proposed order that addresses the actual dispute
The parent seeking ultimate authority should explain why the requested subject must be removed from ordinary joint decision-making and why that parent is better equipped to exercise the authority responsibly. The requested relief should be no broader than the evidence.
Overreaching can damage credibility. A parent who proves a serious educational deadlock may have a strong claim for ultimate educational authority. Demanding control over education, health care, religion, activities, travel, discipline, and every future disagreement may make a legitimate request appear punitive.
The defending parent may show that consultation occurred, the disputed act was a routine or emergency decision, the order was ambiguous, the other parent refused to respond, the alleged violation was isolated, no substantial change occurred, or the proposed remedy is unnecessarily broad. A defense should address both the accusations and the practical solution.
Enforcing Shared Parental Responsibility
A parent who violates a clear decision-making provision may face a motion to enforce or a motion for contempt. The court may compel future compliance, clarify ambiguous language, decide the underlying impasse, order corrective action when consistent with the child’s best interests, award attorney’s fees when authorized, or impose another remedy tailored to the violation.
Contempt begins with the exact language of the order. The obligation must be clear and definite. The court cannot hold a parent in contempt for violating a requirement that the judgment never imposed.
Sabatini v. Wigh, 98 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), illustrates enforceable language. The judgment directed the parents to jointly determine major educational decisions and required them to use a stated dispute-resolution process. The First District affirmed the civil contempt finding after the mother unilaterally enrolled the child in a distant school. It nevertheless reversed a sanction allowing another school change because the trial court had not determined whether that consequence was in the child’s best interests.
Cancino v. Cancino, 273 So. 3d 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), illustrates the opposite problem. The court reversed an indirect criminal contempt judgment because generalized language concerning shared responsibility did not clearly require advance notice or consent for the medical appointments and assessment at issue.
Civil contempt is ordinarily coercive or remedial. It may be used to compel compliance with a clear obligation and must include an appropriate means of compliance when a coercive sanction is imposed. Criminal contempt is punitive and requires the procedural protections applicable to indirect criminal contempt under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, including a proper charge, notice, an opportunity to defend, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not every violation warrants contempt. Sometimes clarification, a specific enforcement order, mediation, or judicial resolution of the immediate impasse is the more effective remedy. Sometimes the order is too vague to support contempt but sufficiently clear for another form of enforcement.
When the violation also involves denial of time-sharing, section 61.13(4) provides additional remedies that may include make-up time-sharing, fees and costs, a parenting course, community service, reasonable sanctions, and contempt. Those statutory remedies for time-sharing violations should not be confused with automatic remedies for every disagreement over parental responsibility.
Our Florida contempt and enforcement lawyers represent parents seeking compliance as well as parents defending against unsupported, procedurally defective, or overreaching contempt claims.
Can Violations of Shared Parental Responsibility Support Modification?
Yes, but a violation does not automatically establish a substantial and material change in circumstances.
Under section 61.13(3), a final determination of parental responsibility or an existing parenting plan generally may not be modified unless the requesting parent proves:
First, a substantial and material change in circumstances; and
Second, that the requested modification is in the child’s best interests.
Florida law no longer requires the change to be “unanticipated.” The Legislature removed that word from the statute in 2023. The change must still be substantial and material.
An isolated unilateral decision may call for enforcement without justifying a permanent reallocation of authority. Modification cannot be imposed merely to punish a parent. Duncan v. Brickman, 233 So. 3d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), explains that a court cannot modify time-sharing simply as a contempt sanction. The child’s best interests and the legal requirements for modification remain controlling.
Repeated violations can become part of a substantial-change case when they demonstrate that the existing structure has materially failed. In Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2005), the Florida Supreme Court upheld modification based on a combination of parental alienation, refusal to cooperate with parenting coordinators, failure to comply with the parenting agreement, unilateral changes to the child’s school and therapist, and contempt concerning visitation.
The distinction is between misconduct that can be corrected by enforcing the existing plan and a continuing pattern showing that the plan no longer functions. Repeatedly concealing medical information, sabotaging treatment, changing schools, refusing every meaningful consultation, manipulating providers, or using decision-making authority to interfere with the other parent’s relationship may collectively establish a substantial change when the conduct materially affects the child or defeats the parenting plan.
A parent seeking modification should plead the changed facts, identify when they occurred, connect them to the child’s welfare, and request a specific new structure. Depending on the proof, the appropriate relief may be ultimate authority over one subject rather than sole responsibility or a wholesale change in time-sharing.
For a detailed analysis of qualifying circumstances, see our Florida guide to the substantial-change requirement and our page concerning post-judgment child custody modifications.
Trial Lawyers for Serious Parental-Responsibility Disputes
Parental-responsibility litigation requires a lawyer to define the real dispute, understand the operative order, obtain admissible evidence, identify the necessary witnesses, anticipate defenses, and propose a parenting structure precise enough to function after the courtroom battle ends.
Richard J. Mockler has extensive family-law trial and appellate experience and has presented continuing legal education programs concerning expert witnesses in child-custody cases and parenting plans for children with developmental disorders.
Angela L. Leiner brings substantial trial and appellate experience to contested parenting, modification, relocation, enforcement, and high-conflict family-law cases. Her work combines careful preparation with a practical understanding of how parenting disputes affect real families.
From its Tampa office, Mockler Leiner Law, P.A. represents mothers and fathers throughout Tampa Bay and across Florida. We negotiate detailed parenting solutions when agreement is possible and litigate when a child’s welfare or a parent’s rights require judicial action.
Florida Parental Responsibility FAQs
What does shared parental responsibility mean in Florida?
Both parents retain parental rights and responsibilities and must confer so that major decisions affecting the child’s welfare are made jointly. Neither parent has an automatic tie-breaking vote unless the parenting plan specifically grants ultimate authority over the disputed subject.
Is parental responsibility the same as equal time-sharing?
No. Time-sharing determines when the child is with each parent. Parental responsibility determines how decisions are made. Parents can have equal time-sharing without identical decision-making authority, and they can have unequal time-sharing while sharing all major decisions.
What decisions must parents make jointly?
The answer depends on the parenting plan, but major decisions commonly include school placement, substantial educational services, nonemergency medical care, significant mental-health treatment, formal religious education, and demanding activities that materially affect cost, travel, safety, or the other parent’s time.
Can each parent make ordinary decisions during that parent’s time?
Generally, yes. Each parent ordinarily decides meals, bedtime, homework supervision, chores, routine discipline, entertainment, minor purchases, and ordinary social activities while the child is with that parent. Those decisions remain subject to the parenting plan, medical requirements, safety restrictions, and other court orders.
Does ultimate decision-making authority mean one parent can skip consultation?
No. Ultimate authority operates within shared parental responsibility. The parents must still confer in good faith. The parent with ultimate authority makes the final decision only after the parents cannot agree within the specifically designated area.
Can a court give one parent ultimate authority over every disagreement?
An unrestricted grant of ultimate authority is effectively sole parental responsibility. De La Fe holds that a universal tie-breaker cannot be imposed without the findings necessary for sole parental responsibility. Ultimate authority should be limited to specifically identified subjects.
Can the court award sole parental responsibility over education alone?
No. Sole parental responsibility is an across-the-board decision-making structure. Under Meyers, authority over education alone should ordinarily be addressed through shared parental responsibility with ultimate educational authority assigned to one parent.
What must be proven to obtain sole parental responsibility?
The evidence must support a specific finding that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child. Relevant circumstances may include domestic violence, abuse, neglect, severe alienation, dangerous instability, substance misuse affecting parenting, or chronic interference with the child’s necessary care.
Can either parent authorize mental-health treatment?
When the parents share health-care responsibility, section 61.13 generally permits either parent to consent to the child’s mental-health treatment unless the parenting plan states otherwise. The plan may impose additional consultation, information-sharing, provider-selection, or joint-consent requirements.
Can a parent with no final decision-making authority still obtain school and medical records?
Generally, yes. Section 61.13 protects both parents’ access to medical, dental, and school records unless a court order specifically restricts or revokes those rights. Ultimate or sole decision-making authority does not automatically eliminate access to information.
Can a parent be held in contempt for making a unilateral decision?
Yes, when the parent willfully violates a clear and definite provision of a court order. Contempt may be unavailable when the order does not clearly require advance notice, consultation, or consent for the particular action. The precise language of the parenting plan is therefore critical.
Can the judge change parental responsibility during a contempt hearing?
The court may enforce its existing order, but it cannot use a parenting modification merely to punish misconduct. A permanent change in parental responsibility generally requires proper notice, appropriate pleadings, proof of a substantial and material change when applicable, and a best-interests determination.
Can repeated violations justify a modification case?
Yes. Repeated violations may establish a substantial and material change when they demonstrate alienation, material interference, harm to the child, persistent unilateral decision-making, or the actual failure of the parenting structure. An isolated disagreement usually presents a weaker modification case.
What should parents do when they reach an impasse?
They should document a reasonable exchange of information, avoid unilateral self-help, comply with any dispute-resolution procedure in the parenting plan, and seek mediation or judicial resolution before a school, treatment, or registration deadline passes. A request to decide one immediate dispute should be distinguished from a request to permanently reallocate authority.
Speak With a Florida Parental Responsibility Lawyer
A dispute over parental responsibility can determine where your child attends school, what treatment your child receives, which activities shape your child’s life, and whether both parents remain meaningfully involved in major decisions.
The solution should be legally correct, supported by evidence, and specific enough to work after the case is over.
If you need to establish, enforce, defend, or modify parental responsibility in a Florida divorce or paternity case, call Mockler Leiner Law, P.A. at (813) 331-5699 or contact us online.
Strategy. Advocacy. Results.