Can a Florida Judge Order a Parent to Enroll Their Child in a Private School?

In Florida divorce cases affecting minor children, it is common for the court to award “shared parental responsibility” to both parents. Also referred to as joint legal custody, shared parental responsibility means that both parents must work together and make joint decisions on significant decisions affecting their child’s welfare, such as where they will attend school. In cases where the parents reach an impasse over a specific issue, however, the court can choose to award one parent “ultimate decision-making” responsibility.

Appeals Court Overturns Child Custody Modification That Violated Mother’s Due Process Rights

While the goal of any custody decision is protecting the best interests of the child, Florida courts must also respect the due process rights of the parents. This includes decisions to award ultimate decision-making authority. A recent decision from the Florida Third Court of Appeal, Greenwood v. Greenwood, provides an apt illustration.

In this case, the parents of a minor child divorced in 2021. The final divorce judgment provided for shared parental responsibility. This included giving both parents joint authority over the child’s education.

In 2024, the mother filed a petition to relocate with the child because she had taken a job in Northern Florida. In response, the father filed a counter-petition seeking ultimate decision-making authority over the child’s education. At the time, the child was enrolled in kindergarten. The divorce judgment provided the child would attend a public school near the mother’s home in Miami-Dade County, but the parents could agree to send the child to a private school.  The child currently attended private prekindergarten.

In his counter-petition, the father said he wanted to enroll the child in a private, religious school, but the mother refused consent. The father therefore asked the judge to issue an emergency order requiring the mother to consent by signing the private school enrollment form. The judge declined to do so, but the father ignored the court and attempted to enroll the child in private school without the mother’s consent.

This led to a hearing on a new motion filed by the father. The private school would not enroll the child without the mother’s consent, so he again asked the court to order her to sign the enrollment form. Again, the judge said no but instead issued an order granting the father ultimate decision-making authority over the child’s education, enabling him to enroll the child without the mother’s consent.

The Third District held that this action violated the mother’s due process rights. For one thing, the appellate court noted, the father never requested ultimate decision-making authority. He’d only sought an order compelling his ex-wife to agree to the private school enrollment. The father had, in fact, previously requested ultimate decision-making authority from the trial court and was denied. The mother therefore never had an opportunity to respond to what was effectively a new motion to grant such authority. Even if the decision to enroll the child in private school was ultimately in the child’s best interest, the Third District said the mother still had a right to respond to a “dramatic shift” in the existing custody arrangements.

Contact a Miami Child Custody Lawyer Today

As the case above illustrates, child custody disputes often continue long past when the parents’ divorce becomes final. If you need legal advice or representation from a skilled Miami child custody  attorney, contact Hamilton O’Neill today to schedule a consultation.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14809617749107955664