Over 30 Years Experience
As an Attorney and Therapist
Seek Fair Results
Outside of Court

Category: Appeals

Maternal Rights of Same-Sex Partners – T.M.H. v. D.M.T (Part II)

Continued from Part I. The Court ruled in T.M.H. v. D.M.T, that Florida’s statute prohibiting gay or lesbian prospective parents from adopting a child, does not operate to take away the maternal rights of a biological or birth mother. That seems like a common sense ruling, like the ruling that TMH was clearly not a “donor”, but both were major issues in the case. There was a dissenting Judge in the case who wrote an opinion stating that under Florida law, TMH — the biological mother, had lost her rights as a parent. Another important issue in the case was whether TMH had waived her rights as a parent, by signing a waiver form at the reproductive clinic — the form basically provided that TMH waived any rights she might have as a parent regarding any child resulting from her donation of her ova. The court ruled that this waiver

Read More »

Maternal Rights of Same-Sex Partners – T.M.H. v. D.M.T, A Florida Case of “First Impression”

The Fifth District Court of Appeals in Florida – the appeals court covering the north/central part of the State, recently decided T.M.H. v. D.M.T, 79 So. 3d 787 (Fla. 5th D.C.A., December 23, 2011), a case dealing with the parental rights of lesbian partners. In this case the partners decided to have a child together – one partner, TMH’s egg was fertilized and implanted by in-vitro fertilization in DMT. The child was born in 2004; the parties lived together for approximately 2 ½ years and raised their child together, and separated in 2006, but continued co-parenting for another 1 ½ years. The parents’ relationship deteriorated, and DMT moved out of the country and cut off TMH’s contact with the child. The Court described the case as a case of “first impression”, i.e. an issue that had not been decided yet by Florida’s appellate courts, and ruled that both parents –

Read More »

Losing Alimony in Florida Divorce Cases — Hill v. Hill (Part II)

The dissent in Hill v. Hill, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D 475 (Fla. 3rd DCA, March, 2, 2011) saw the case much differently than the majority. The dissenting Judge saw the majority’s opinion as overturning the trial court’s order from 1990, even though the time for appealing the decision had expired long ago, and the Husband had never appealed. The trial judge’s order in 1990 provided that the trial court was retaining jurisdiction to address alimony at a later date, in contemplation of the Husband’s income increasing when he began receiving his pension. From the dissent’s perspective, that decision became final thirty days after it was filed, and if the Husband had been dissatisfied with the order he should have appealed within the required time-frame. The dissenting opinion also addressed several legal arguments regarding whether the Husband had “waived” any objection regarding jurisdiction to consider alimony, and whether the appeals

Read More »

Losing Alimony in Florida Divorce Cases — Hill v. Hill

The Florida Court of Appeal for the 3rd District of Florida (the appeals District that covers Dade and Monroe Counties) recently filed a significant opinion dealing with what has to happen for a court to “reserve” jurisdiction to award alimony, Hill v. Hill, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D 475 (Fla. 3rd DCA, March, 2, 2011). The opinion isn’t final yet – one of the parties has filed a Motion for a Rehearing – i.e. a request for the appellate court to hear the case again and reconsider its opinion. I’ll include in a future post more about the different courts in Florida, and the appeals process. Reserving jurisdiction regarding alimony means the court is not awarding alimony at the time of the divorce, but is saying it will consider awarding alimony in the future. This is allowed under Florida law, for example, when one spouse needs alimony at the time

Read More »

CALL STEVE NOW!

(954) 636-7498

CONTACT US

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in this form. This form sends information by non-encrypted e-mail which is not secure.

Submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship.