In the Circuit Court of the Thirteeth Judicial District

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

FAMILY LAW DIVISION

ALICE DOE,

Petitioner

CASE NO.:

and DIVISION:

BOB DOE,

Respondent

______/

ANSWER TO PETITION AND COUNTERPETITION
FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE WITH DEPENDENT OR MINOR CHILDREN

I, BOB DOE, Respondent, being sworn, certify that the following information is true:

ANSWER TO PETITION

I agree with Petitioner as to the allegations raised in the following numbered paragraphs in the Petition and, therefore, admit those allegations: Paragraphs 1–4
I disagree with Petitioner as to the allegations raised in the following numbered paragraphs in the Petition and, therefore, deny those allegations: Sections III–V .

COUNTERPETITION FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE WITH MINOR CHILDREN

JURISDICTION/RESIDENCE
( ) Husband ( ) Wife (X) Both have lived in Florida for at least 6 months before the filing of this Petition for Dissolution of Marriage.
Petitioner ( ) is ( X) is not a member of the military service. Respondent [ one only] ( ) is (X) is not a member of the military service.
MARRIAGE HISTORY
Date of marriage: 2001

Place of marriage: {city, state, country} Date of separation: {month, day, year}

4. DEPENDENT OR MINOR CHILD(REN)

___The wife is pregnant. Baby is due on: {date}
___The minor (under 18) child(ren) common to both parties are:

NamesBirth Dates

__ Faith Doe______1/5/2005 – 10 years approx.

Hope Doe______2/4/2003_– 12 years approx.

The birth father of the above minor child(ren) is BOB DOE.

A completed Family Law Financial Affidavit, Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure Form 12.902(b) will be filed.
A completed Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) Affidavit, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.902(d), will be filed.
A completed Notice of Social Security Number, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.902(j), will be filed.
A completed Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) AffidavitFlorida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.902(d), is filed with this counterpetition. You must complete and attach this form in a dissolution of marriage with minor child(ren).
A completed Notice of Social Security Number, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.902(j), is filed with this counterpetition.
This counterpetition for dissolution of marriage should be granted because:
_X_The marriage is irretrievably broken.
___One of the parties has been adjudged mentally incapacitated for a period of 3 years prior to the filing of this counterpetition. A copy of the Judgment of Incapacity is attached.

Respondent will not address Marital Assets and Liabilities or Spousal Support (Alimony), per Court request.

SECTION I. PARENTING PLAN ESTABLISHING PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AND TIME-SHARING

The minor children currently reside with their mother and father, as the parties are not yet divorced.
Parental Responsibility. It is in the children’s best interests that parental responsibility be:
_X_shared by both Father and Mother.
___awarded solely to ( ) Father ( ) Mother.
Parenting Plan and Time-Sharing. It is in the best interests of the child(ren) that the family be ordered to comply with a Parenting Plan that ( X) includes ( ) does not include parental time- sharing with the child(ren). The Respondent states that it is in the best interests of the child(ren) that:
a. _X_The attached proposed Parenting Plan should be adopted by the court. The parties ( ) have (X) have not agreed to the Parenting Plan.
b. ___The court should establish a Parenting Plan with the following provisions:

( )No time-sharing for the ___ Husband ___ Wife.
( ) Limited time-sharing with the ___ Husband ___ Wife.
( )Supervised time-sharing for the ___ Husband ___ Wife.
( )Supervised or third-party exchange of the child(ren).
(X) Time-sharing as follows:

It is in the children’s best interest that parental responsibility be awarded solely to the Father for medical, dental, and educational decisions, and shared by both Mother and Father for all other.

Explain why this request is in the best interests of the child(ren):

It is in the best interests of the children that the family is ordered to comply with a Parenting Plan that includes parental time-sharing with the children.

The Father/Respondent, BOB DOE, asserts that due to the Mother’s demanding work schedule, he previously assumed the role of caregiver for their two children. Specifically, he was responsible for preparing meals for the children, getting them ready for school, picking them up and dropping them off at school, as well as taking them to their extracurricular activities.

While Respondent acknowledges that he is out of town approximately four days a week, ten times a year, as well as for a month over the summer, it would not be in their best interest to place the children solely with their mother due to her year-round demanding work schedule requirements. This is because currently, Respondent is responsible for the children’s care approximately 80% of the time. Conversely, and as to petitioner, her work demands require that she share the care of the children with her family members.

Therefore, Respondent hereby opposes Petitioner’s request to move the children from the Tampa Bay area to Jacksonville, Florida, for all times except one weekend per month, six weekends per summer, and various holidays. Instead, Respondent requests that the children shall spend time with their father in Tampa, FL, at all times, except one weekend per month, six weeks over the summer (to coincide with Respondent’s out-of-town travel schedule), and a holiday schedule to be coordinated between the parties.

Further, during the time that father is traveling out of town, he will coordinate childcare responsibilities with his local family, to include his mother and other family members.

SECTION II. RESPONDENT’S/COUNTERPETITIONER’S REQUEST (This section summarizes what you are asking the Court to include in the final judgment of dissolution of marriage.)

Respondent requests that the Court enter an order dissolving the marriage and:

___ distributing marital assets and liabilities as requested in Section I of this petition;
___ awarding spousal support (alimony) as requested in Section II of this petition;
__X_ adopt or establish a Parenting Plan containing provisions for parental responsibility and time-sharing for the dependent or minor child(ren) common to both parties, as requested in Section III of this petition;
___ establishing child support for the dependent or minor child(ren) common to both parties, as requested in Section IV of this petition;
___ restoring Wife’s former name as requested in Section V of this petition;
___ awarding other relief as requested in Section V of this petition; and any other terms the Court deems necessary.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to enter an order dissolving the marriage and:

Deny the relocation of the minor children in Petitioner’s request; and,
Establish a parenting plan in accordance with Section I of this counterpetition

DATED this 7th day of March, 2015

______

Natalie Jones

Shadi Traish

Lindsey Sheppy

Therese Adipietro

Steve Cohen

Desire Colson

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been served via the e-filing portal to the parties listed below on this 7th day of March, 2015.

TEAM HERNANDO

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

FAMILY LAW DIVISION

ALICE DOE,

Petitioner

CASE NO.:

and DIVISION:

BOB DOE,

Respondent

______/

MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO AND IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S PETITION

Pursuant to Fla. Stat. Ch. 61, Respondent hereby submits the following factors in support of his counter petition for dissolution of marriage with minor children. “The parent or other person wishing to relocate has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation is in the best interest of the child.” Orta v. Suarez, 6 So. 3d 988, 944 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 2011).

Accordingly, Respondent asserts that relocation to Jacksonville, Florida is not in the best interests of the children, and offers the following arguments in support in accordance with Fla. Stat. 61.13001(7)(a)-(b):

Relocation to Jacksonville, Florida would not be in the best interests of the children because the nature, quality, extent of involvement of the children’s relationship with PETITIONER would . For the entirety of the children’s lives, the RESPONDENT was the primary caregiver. This role included cooking the children’s meals, getting the children ready for, picking them up, and taking them to school. RESPONDENT also provided quality care by assisting the children in pursuing extracurricular activities of their choice such as ballet and soccer.

PETITIONER’S work schedule is inflexible and requires long hours. RESPONDENT, on the other hand, has been responsible for nearly 80% of the children’s care. The children have grown accustomed to the relationship and care provided by the RESPONDENT, and uprooting the children from their primary caregiver as well as their home and community. Transplanting the children would not only not be in their best interest, but may also have adverse consequences in their development. The children are transitioning to middle school and high school, which is a key stage in the children’s academic career. It is vital not to displace the children as they have been correctly assessed and placed in their respective classes by their school district.

Unlike the PETITIONER, the RESPONDENT’s trains locally for his competitions, and he would not be able to relocate to Jacksonville. The PETITIONER has chosen to take a lateral position in an area no less than three driving hours away, to an area unfamiliar to both the RESPONDENT and the children. The driving time alone is enough to significantly impact the limited amount of time that the PETITIONER is proposing. Thus the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the RESPONDENT and the children is highly unlikely.

The PETITIONER asserts that the chidren will have reliable support in Jacksonville, FL; including, added financial stability. However, PETITIONER has not provided any evidence that other family members are going to be providing monetary or other forms of care to the children. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the children have a relationship with the family members in Jacksonville. The RESPONDENT as the primary caregiver has gone great lengths to ensure that the children have a support system in Tampa.

The RESPONDENT is taking a lateral position that neither increases her level of income or her level of both authority and responsibility. This move appears to have been contemplated to distance the RESPONDENT from his children, as opposed to a strategic career move or a move to benefit the children. Furthermore, the RESPONDENT, as the primary caregiver will have his time reduced from approximately 80% of the time to merely 20%. Prior to the PETITIONER’s petition, no arrangement was ever made for her to take the role as the primary caregiver.

The RESPONDENT in fully dedicating himself to the role as primary caregiver has not pursued other opportunity that would allow him to increase his earning potential. The RESPONDENT’s Olympic training team are located in Tampa, thus relocation is not available to him at this time.

In accordance to Florida Statute §61.13(3), the court should also consider the following factors in response to the RESPONDENT’s counter petition for parenting and timesharing.

61.13(3)(a)

PETITIONER’s has not demonstrated the capacity and disposition to be the full-time care giver. The RESPONDENT has played this role in the children’s lives, with no objections from the PETITIONER or any other parties.

61.13(3)(b)

PETITIONER has claimed that she wishes to increase her involvement and care in the children’s lives. A better suited delegation of the responsibilities would be to allow the PETITIONER and RESPONDENT to coordinate their respective schedules and support systems to ensure that the children have access to both parent and their extended support systems. PETITIONER would request that the children’s lives are not disrupted by shifting him away from the role of primary caregiver. The PETITIONER has made reference to an incident where the RESPONDENT’s family member arrived at the home intoxicated; however, the PETITIONER acted in the best interest of the children and did not allow the intoxicated family member to care for the children. PETITIONER has not supplied information or evidence to show that she has a reliable caregiver in Jacksonville. It would be in the best interest of the children for both of their legal parents to coordinate their schedules so that the RESPONDENT continues to care for the children 80% of the time and PETITIONER cares for the children 20% of the time. This schedule can be achieved by allowing the PETITIONER to access the children when the RESPONDENT is required to travel for his employment.

61.13(3)(c)

PETITIONER heavily relies upon one incident to portray the RESPONDENT’s support system as being unreliable. However, this does not take into consideration that the PETITIONER did not allow the intoxicated individual to care for the child, that the PETITIONER is the party who is secondary caregiver and can focus on her employment, and there is only one demonstrable instance where the PETITIONER had placed the needs of her children before her own needs.

61.13(3)(d)

The RESPONDENT is able to either purchase or rent the home from the PETITIONER, thereby maintaining a stable, satisfactory, and desirable living environment for the children. In addition, irrespective of whether the home where the children grew up is sold, RESPONDENT maintains his relationship with the children. Furthermore, the children can continue to maintain a relationship with their community, education system, and peers.

61.13(3)(e)

The RESPONDENT’s plan is not feasible for all of the aforementioned reasons in section 61.13001(7) portion of the response.

61.13(3)(f)

In the State of Florida, there is a no-fault divorce system. Thus, irrespective of a parties alleged affair or faithfulness, should not have any bearing on the outcome of a timeshare agreement.

61.13(3) (g)-(j)

There are no facts that either party can be utilize for these factors.

61.13(3) (k)

For the entirety of the children’s lives, the RESPONDENT was the primary caregiver. This role included cooking the children’s meals, getting the children ready for, picking them up, and taking them to school. He was the party responsible for creating and maintaining the children’s schedule. RESPONDENT also provided quality care by assisting the children in pursuing extracurricular activities of their choice such as ballet and soccer. PETITIONER’S work schedule is inflexible and requires long hours. RESPONDENT, on the other hand, has been responsible for nearly 80% of the children’s care. The children have grown accustomed to the relationship and care provided by the RESPONDENT.

61.13(3)(l)-(n)

There are no facts that either party can be utilize for these factors.

61.13(3)(o)

RESPONDENT has customarily took the primary parenting role and wishes continue to do so.

61.13(3)(p)

RESPONDENT has maintained the schedule, transportation, and participation in the children’s extracurricular activities: soccer and ballet. PETITIONER does not participate or attend these events, due to her work schedule. Since her work schedule to permit her to attend or participate in these activities, and her work schedule will remain the same in the future, it seems that the children would not be able to participate in these activities going forward.

61.13(3)(q)-(r)

There are no facts that either party can be utilize for these factors.

61.13(3)(s)

RESPONDENT is with his children every day and is there primary caregiver. RESPONDENT takes care of the children when they are sick and the children trust him. RESPONDENT is an intelligent individual who understands that there are biological differences between a male and female. PETITIONER can still be involved in the children’s lives and can guide them through their adolescent years.

61.13(3)(t)

The Florida family law system encourages the primary caretaker to continue to possess that role. Here, PETITIONER is attempting to benefit from having the RESPONDENT’s role of being the primary caregiver and stating that he has more flexibility, rather than focusing on his caregiver role on his children’s lives.