Florida Parental Responsiblity
Florida Parental Responsibility: Who Decides What for Your Child?
Florida parental responsibility law answers a deceptively simple question: Who gets to make decisions for the child?
The answer is usually both parents. But “shared” does not mean that every choice requires a conference, nor does it mean that either parent may act unilaterally whenever agreement becomes inconvenient. Florida law distinguishes major decisions affecting a child’s welfare from the ordinary, day-to-day decisions each parent makes while caring for the child.
The difficult cases live near the boundary. Is enrolling a child in competitive dance a major decision? What about buying a teenager a car? Selecting a church, authorizing therapy, changing schools, permitting tackle football, administering corporal punishment, or signing a driver-license application?
There is no universal answer divorced from the parenting plan, the practical consequences of the decision, and the circumstances of the family. A carefully drafted Florida parenting plan should define the important categories, allocate authority clearly, and provide a realistic method for breaking a deadlock.
Mockler Leiner Law, P.A. represents parents in contested and negotiated parental-responsibility cases throughout Tampa Bay and across Florida. These disputes arise in divorce, paternity, temporary-relief, post-judgment modification, enforcement, relocation, and appellate proceedings.
Parental Responsibility Is Not the Same as Time-Sharing
Time-sharing determines when the child is with each parent. Parental responsibility determines how decisions about the child will be made.
A parent can have equal time-sharing without having ultimate authority over education or medical care. A parent can have less than half of the overnights while retaining equal participation in major decisions. A court can also award shared parental responsibility while giving one parent ultimate responsibility over a particular subject.
Florida’s rebuttable presumption concerning equal time-sharing does not automatically require identical decision-making authority in every area. The two issues are related, but they are legally distinct.
Section 61.046(17), Florida Statutes, 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 61.13 requires the court to order shared parental responsibility unless shared responsibility would be detrimental to the child. The court’s primary consideration is always the child’s best interests, evaluated under the statutory factors and the evidence concerning the particular family.
The Three Basic Decision-Making Structures
Shared parental responsibility
Under ordinary shared parental responsibility, both parents must meaningfully confer and reach agreement on major decisions affecting the child. Neither parent receives an automatic tie-breaking vote.
Shared responsibility does not mean that one parent announces a decision and gives the other parent a short opportunity to object. It requires a genuine exchange of relevant information, reasonable time for consideration when circumstances permit, and a good-faith effort to reach agreement.
It also does not require joint approval of every meal, bedtime, household chore, routine purchase, or minor scheduling choice. Each parent ordinarily retains reasonable authority to manage the child’s daily care while the child is with that parent.
Shared parental responsibility with ultimate decision-making authority
Section 61.13 permits a court to preserve shared parental responsibility while giving one parent ultimate responsibility over a specific aspect of the child’s welfare. Education and health care are expressly identified, but the statute also permits allocation of other responsibilities unique to the family.
This is a limited tie-breaking mechanism. The parents must still confer. If they cannot reach agreement after a meaningful discussion, the parent holding ultimate responsibility makes the final decision within the specifically identified area.
The authority must be supported by evidence and defined with precision. 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 record did not justify it. By contrast, Schneider v. Schneider, 864 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), upheld specifically allocated authority where the evidence showed serious hostility and conduct interfering with teachers and a psychologist.
An order should not provide that one parent has ultimate authority over anything and everything on which the parents disagree. In De La Fe v. De La Fe, 332 So. 3d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), the Second District explained that unrestricted tie-breaking authority was effectively an award of sole parental responsibility. Likewise, McClure v. Beck, 212 So. 3d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), rejected open-ended language that failed to identify the concrete subjects over which one parent had final authority.
The proper question is not simply whether the parents fight. The court must determine what they fight about, how that conflict affects the child, and whether one parent is demonstrably better equipped to make decisions in that particular area.
Sole parental responsibility
Sole parental responsibility places decision-making authority with one parent. It is a substantial departure from Florida’s preference for shared responsibility.
A court must make the required finding that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child. Evidence may include domestic violence, abuse, neglect, severe untreated substance misuse, dangerous instability, parental alienation, chronic interference with necessary care, or other conduct showing that joint decision-making would expose the child to harm.
Sole parental responsibility does not necessarily eliminate the other parent’s time-sharing or access to information. Those issues must be addressed separately. Section 61.13 generally preserves both parents’ access to medical, dental, and school records unless a court order specifically restricts those rights.
Florida law also distinguishes sole responsibility from ultimate responsibility over a specific subject. In Meyers v. Meyers, 295 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020), the Second District held that the court could not award “sole parental responsibility” over education alone. A specific subject should ordinarily be addressed through shared parental responsibility with ultimate responsibility allocated over that identified area.
What Is a Major Decision?
Florida’s statutes do not contain an exhaustive list of major decisions. A parenting plan may define the term more precisely.
As a practical matter, a decision is more likely to be considered major when it has a substantial or continuing effect on the child’s education, health, safety, religious formation, development, schedule, finances, or relationship with either parent.
Major decisions commonly include:
Changing schools, enrolling in private school, beginning home education, or making another significant educational placement;
Approving an Individualized Education Program, substantial educational evaluation, or important special-education service;
Selecting a primary physician, therapist, psychiatrist, or other continuing provider;
Authorizing nonemergency surgery, significant medical treatment, psychiatric medication, or a major course of therapy;
Making material decisions about formal religious education or religious schooling;
Committing the child to an expensive, dangerous, travel-intensive, or unusually demanding extracurricular activity;
Obtaining a learner’s permit or driver license and deciding whether the child may regularly operate a vehicle;
Making a decision that substantially affects the other parent’s time-sharing, transportation obligations, or financial responsibilities.
The label attached to a decision is not controlling. An activity can be minor in one family and major in another. A weekly piano lesson five minutes from home is different from a competitive music program requiring interstate travel, large expenses, and rehearsals during the other parent’s time.
What Is a Day-to-Day Decision?
Day-to-day decisions are the routine choices necessary to care for the child during a parent’s time-sharing. They commonly include meals, bedtimes, ordinary clothing, homework supervision, chores, routine transportation, age-appropriate entertainment, minor purchases, and ordinary social activities.
The Florida Supreme Court’s parenting-plan form recognizes that each parent generally makes decisions concerning the child’s daily care and control while the child is with that parent. Either parent may also make genuine emergency decisions affecting the child’s health or safety.
A routine decision can become major when its effects extend beyond one household. A parent may decide what the child eats for dinner. That does not necessarily permit the parent to disregard a medically required diet. A parent may arrange an ordinary playdate. That does not necessarily permit an unsupervised overnight with a person whom the parenting plan identifies as a safety risk.
The wording of the operative order always matters. Parents should not rely on generalized notions of “my house, my rules” when the parenting plan contains specific restrictions or joint-decision requirements.
School, Education, and Academic Decisions
School selection is one of the clearest examples of a major decision. It affects the child’s daily schedule, curriculum, transportation, peer relationships, activities, and often the time-sharing plan itself.
Parents sharing educational responsibility should not unilaterally withdraw a child from one school and enroll the child in another. In Dickson v. Dickson, 169 So. 3d 287 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015), the court explained that parents who reached an impasse over school selection were required to obtain a judicial decision based on the child’s best interests.
But not every preliminary educational step is itself a major decision. In Lane v. Lane, 254 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), taking a child for an admission assessment was distinguished from actually withdrawing and enrolling the child in a different school. In Sabatini v. Wigh, 98 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), contempt was upheld where a parent unilaterally enrolled the child in a distant school contrary to an order requiring joint participation.
Educational cases should be decided with evidence rather than slogans. Relevant proof may include school performance, attendance, testing, special needs, class size, curriculum, transportation, tuition, financial ability, continuity, the child’s developmental needs, application deadlines, and the effect of each option on time-sharing.
Medical, Dental, and Mental-Health Decisions
Routine first aid and genuine emergency treatment ordinarily cannot wait for a conference. Nonemergency treatment with lasting consequences is more likely to require joint agreement.
The dividing line may depend on the order. Taking a child with a fever to a pediatrician is not the same as selecting a new specialist, beginning long-term therapy, authorizing surgery, changing psychiatric medication, or rejecting a recommended treatment plan.
The parenting plan should specify:
Which decisions require advance consultation;
How quickly medical information must be shared;
Whether both parents may communicate directly with providers;
Who schedules routine appointments;
Whether both parents must consent to evaluations or continuing treatment;
Who has ultimate authority if agreement cannot be reached; and
What happens when a provider recommends immediate action.
Florida law contains an important mental-health provision. When the court orders shared parental responsibility over health-care decisions, either parent may consent to the child’s mental-health treatment unless the parenting plan states otherwise. Parents who want a different rule should address it expressly.
A parent should also distinguish decision-making authority from access to information. Ultimate authority over health care does not automatically permit a parent to conceal records, appointments, diagnoses, or provider information from the other parent.
Buying a Car and Permitting a Teenager to Drive
Buying a teenager a car is not automatically classified as a major parental-responsibility decision simply because the purchase is expensive. One parent may be able to make a gift without obtaining the other parent’s permission.
The surrounding consequences can make driving a major issue. Questions may include:
Whether the child is mature and safe enough to drive;
Who will sign the driver-license application;
Who will provide insurance;
Which vehicles the child may operate;
Whether the child may transport siblings or friends;
Whether the car will be available at both homes;
Who pays for fuel, maintenance, repairs, deductibles, and tickets;
Whether driving will replace transportation required by the parenting plan; and
Whether either parent has legitimate concerns involving substance use, reckless behavior, school performance, or safety.
Section 322.09, Florida Statutes, generally requires the application of a driver under eighteen to be signed by a parent, guardian, or other qualifying adult. Negligence or willful misconduct by the minor driver may be imputed to the person who signed the application, creating joint and several liability for resulting damages.
That financial exposure makes signing a license application materially different from purchasing an ordinary gift. One parent should not assume that the other parent can be compelled to sign, insure the vehicle, contribute to its cost, or surrender time-sharing transportation rights unless the parenting plan or another order requires it.
For families approaching the teenage years, driving provisions should be negotiated before the keys are handed over.
Sports, Dance, Music, Clubs, and Other Activities
Activities are often treated as if they are either categorically major or categorically routine. Neither approach works well.
A parent can ordinarily take a child to a casual activity during that parent’s time. The parent cannot necessarily enroll the child in a year-round travel program, schedule practices throughout the other parent’s time, and then demand transportation and payment.
The analysis should consider cost, physical risk, frequency, travel, scheduling, the child’s established participation, the child’s wishes and abilities, interference with school, interference with time-sharing, and the obligations being imposed on the other parent.
A well-drafted provision can state:
Which existing activities will continue;
Whether new activities require written agreement;
Whether consent may be unreasonably withheld;
How long a parent has to respond to a proposed activity;
Whether silence constitutes rejection or consent;
How registration fees, uniforms, equipment, lessons, and travel will be paid;
Which parent provides transportation;
Whether either parent may enroll the child solely during that parent’s time and at that parent’s expense; and
How activities will be handled when they conflict with holidays or vacations.
The child’s activity should not become a device for taking over the other parent’s time. Conversely, a parent should not obstruct a longstanding activity merely to inconvenience the other parent or force unnecessary litigation.
Discipline and Corporal Punishment
Each parent ordinarily makes routine disciplinary decisions while the child is in that parent’s care. Florida’s best-interest factors nevertheless direct the court to consider each parent’s ability to provide a consistent routine, including discipline, and to present a unified front on major issues.
Section 39.01 provides that corporal discipline by a parent or legal custodian does not, by itself, constitute abuse when it does not result in harm. That provision is not a blank check. Discipline resulting in injury, significant impairment, fear, excessive force, or other legally recognized harm may lead to family-court restrictions, a child-protective investigation, an injunction proceeding, criminal exposure, or dependency litigation.
A family court may prohibit corporal punishment when the evidence and the child’s best interests support that restriction. Parents may also agree to a no-corporal-punishment provision.
Once such a provision becomes part of an order, neither parent may disregard it based on a personal belief that physical discipline is reasonable. The order controls.
If discipline is a predictable source of conflict, the parenting plan should address prohibited methods, age-appropriate consequences, communication about serious misconduct, and whether the parents will consult with a therapist or parenting professional.
Religion and Religious Upbringing
Religion presents both parental-responsibility and constitutional concerns.
Formal religious education, initiation, religious schooling, and other significant questions may qualify as major decisions. But a family court cannot simply select a preferred faith or prohibit a parent from exposing the child to that parent’s religious practices because the other parent objects.
In Abbo v. Briskin, 660 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), the court rejected judicial selection of one religion over another. Gerencser v. Mills, 4 So. 3d 22 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), explained that a parent ordinarily should not be prevented from exposing the children to that parent’s religious practices without a clear showing of harm. In Steinman v. Steinman, 191 So. 3d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), the court reversed provisions that improperly restricted a parent’s religious practices where the necessary showing of harm had not been made.
The court can enforce a valid agreement, address demonstrated harm, and decide secular consequences involving school placement, medical treatment, transportation, or time-sharing. It should not declare a theological winner.
Parents negotiating religious provisions should distinguish among attendance at services, formal education, ceremonies, dietary practices, holidays, religious schooling, medical objections, and what each parent may do during that parent’s time. A vague statement that the child will be raised in a particular faith may create more conflict than it resolves.
What Happens When Parents Cannot Agree?
Shared parental responsibility does not give either parent unilateral authority merely because discussions have failed. Unless one parent already holds ultimate responsibility over the disputed subject, the parents ordinarily have four available paths:
Continue a structured, good-faith exchange of information;
Use mediation;
Use an appointed parenting coordinator when appropriate; or
Ask the court to resolve the specific impasse.
Florida appellate courts recognize that a judge can resolve a genuine deadlock by applying the child’s best-interest standard. Lane, Dickson, and Gerencser each address judicial resolution of parental impasses.
The court does not decide by asking which parent is more forceful or which proposal is more convenient for an adult. The decision must be grounded in the child’s welfare and supported by competent evidence.
Procedure matters. A motion to decide a current school dispute is different from a request to permanently rewrite the allocation of parental responsibility. A post-judgment request for new ultimate or sole authority may require a properly pleaded modification claim, proof of a substantial and material change in circumstances, and a showing that the requested modification serves the child’s best interests. Our post-judgment modification attorneys handle both sides of these disputes.
When an enrollment, treatment, or activity deadline is approaching, delay can decide the issue by default. Parents should seek relief early enough for meaningful discovery, mediation, and a hearing.
Evidence and Trial Strategy in a Decision-Making Dispute
The strongest parental-responsibility case is specific.
“The other parent is impossible” is a conclusion. The court needs evidence showing what happened, what decision was required, how each parent responded, and how the conflict affected the child.
Useful evidence may include:
Emails, text messages, and parenting-application communications;
School records, report cards, attendance records, evaluations, and disciplinary records;
Medical and therapy records;
Appointment histories and communications with providers;
Activity schedules, contracts, costs, and travel requirements;
Driver records, insurance information, and safety evidence;
Prior agreements and court orders;
Testimony from teachers, doctors, therapists, coaches, or other witnesses with actual knowledge;
Evidence showing missed deadlines, withheld information, interference, or refusal to participate; and
A realistic proposed solution.
Overreaching can weaken an otherwise legitimate case. A parent who proves a serious educational deadlock may have a persuasive request for ultimate educational responsibility. Asking for unlimited control over education, health care, religion, activities, travel, discipline, and every other subject can make the request appear punitive.
The court will also examine the proposed decision itself. A request for ultimate authority is not strengthened by an unreasonable school, unnecessary treatment, unaffordable activity, or plan that disregards the other parent’s time.
At Mockler Leiner Law, we approach child custody and time-sharing disputes by identifying the exact relief needed, developing admissible evidence, and presenting a parenting structure that can function after the litigation ends.
Enforcing Shared Parental Responsibility
A parent who violates a clear decision-making provision may face a motion for enforcement or contempt. Available relief can include an order compelling compliance, reversal of an unauthorized action when practical, a judicial decision on the underlying dispute, clarification of ambiguous language, attorney’s fees when legally authorized, or other remedies tailored to the violation.
Contempt requires more than proof that the other parent behaved unreasonably. The order must clearly state the duty allegedly violated.
In Cancino v. Cancino, 273 So. 3d 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), a contempt ruling was reversed where generalized shared-responsibility language did not clearly explain what advance notice or consent was required for medical appointments and an assessment. Florida courts do not ordinarily hold a person in contempt for violating an obligation that the order does not actually contain.
That distinction shapes litigation strategy:
If the order is clear and the violation is willful, contempt may be appropriate.
If the order is enforceable but contempt is unavailable, another enforcement remedy may be stronger.
If the order is ambiguous, clarification may be necessary.
If the existing allocation has become unworkable, modification may be required.
If the dispute concerns one immediate decision, the court may be asked to resolve that impasse without permanently reallocating all authority.
Decision-making disputes generally do not produce tort-style damages. The practical remedies are compliance, specific relief, fees where authorized, sanctions in appropriate cases, and a more workable future parenting structure. Our Florida contempt and enforcement lawyers represent parents seeking compliance and parents defending against unsupported contempt allegations.
How a Parenting Coordinator Can Help
The correct Florida term is parenting coordinator.
Section 61.125 describes parenting coordination as a child-focused, nonadversarial dispute-resolution process. A parenting coordinator can help parents implement the parenting plan, improve communication, identify recurring conflict, exchange information, develop practical routines, and resolve lower-level disputes before they become hearings.
A parenting coordinator is not a substitute judge.
With the parents’ prior approval and the court’s approval, a parenting coordinator may make limited decisions within the scope of the referral order. Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.742 does not permit the coordinator to decide substantive disputes that would modify parental responsibility or significantly change the quantity or quality of a parent’s time with the child.
A parenting coordinator therefore cannot award one parent ultimate educational authority, change sole responsibility to shared responsibility, remove a parent’s decision-making rights, or substantially rewrite the time-sharing plan. Those decisions belong to the court.
Parenting coordination is generally confidential, subject to statutory exceptions. Parents should not assume that the coordinator can later testify about everything said during the process. The order of referral should define the coordinator’s authority, fees, reporting obligations, and the subjects to be addressed.
When there is a history of domestic violence, the court cannot refer the parents to parenting coordination unless both consent, and appropriate safeguards must be considered. The court must also address the parties’ financial ability to pay the coordinator’s fees.
Can Mediation Resolve a Parental-Responsibility Dispute?
Yes. Mediation is often the best setting for creating a detailed solution that a judge would not have time to design at a short hearing.
Sections 44.102 and 61.183, Florida Statutes, authorize mediation of contested parental-responsibility issues. A mediator does not decide who is right and cannot impose a result. The mediator helps the parents evaluate risks, exchange proposals, and negotiate an agreement.
A mediated agreement can address consultation deadlines, required documentation, emergency authority, school selection, provider choice, therapy, activities, driving, discipline, religion, transportation, expenses, and the precise subjects over which either parent will have ultimate authority.
The agreement should be reduced to a clear written form, reviewed by counsel, and submitted for court approval. Once incorporated into an order, it can be enforced like other parenting provisions.
Mediation is not appropriate in every case. Upon a proper request, a court should not refer a case when a history of domestic violence would compromise the mediation process. Safety, coercive control, access to financial resources, and each parent’s ability to negotiate freely must be taken seriously.
Learn more about our approach to Florida family law mediation.
Trial Lawyers for Complex Parental-Responsibility Disputes
Parental-responsibility litigation requires more than a generic proposed parenting plan. The lawyer must understand the governing statute, define the disputed decision, obtain the right records, identify the necessary witnesses, anticipate evidentiary objections, and present a workable remedy.
Richard J. Mockler has extensive family-law trial experience and has presented continuing legal education programs concerning expert witnesses in child-custody cases and the development of parenting plans for children with developmental disorders. He also served for more than twelve years as a Florida Supreme Court Certified Family Law Mediator.
Angela L. Leiner brings substantial trial and appellate experience to contested family-law cases. Her work includes difficult disputes involving parental decision-making, supervision, mental health, substance misuse, domestic violence, relocation, and other issues requiring careful preparation and confident courtroom advocacy.
Mockler Leiner Law, P.A. represents mothers and fathers in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Pinellas County, Pasco County, Polk County, Manatee County, Sarasota County, Hernando County, and throughout Florida. We negotiate when a durable agreement is possible and litigate when the child’s welfare or a parent’s rights require judicial intervention.
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 automatically has a tie-breaking vote.
Does equal time-sharing mean equal decision-making authority?
Not necessarily. Time-sharing and parental responsibility are separate issues. Parents can have equal time-sharing while one parent holds ultimate responsibility over a specific subject.
What is considered a major decision?
Major decisions commonly include school placement, significant medical treatment, continuing mental-health care, formal religious education, demanding extracurricular commitments, and driving decisions. The parenting plan and the practical consequences of the decision control.
Can each parent make ordinary decisions during that parent’s time?
Generally, yes. Each parent ordinarily controls meals, bedtimes, chores, routine entertainment, homework supervision, minor purchases, and other daily matters while the child is with that parent, subject to the parenting plan and the child’s safety.
Can the court award one parent ultimate decision-making authority?
Yes. The court may award ultimate responsibility over a specifically identified area when supported by the child’s best interests and competent evidence. The parents must still confer before the parent with ultimate authority breaks the deadlock.
Can the court give one parent ultimate authority over everything?
An unrestricted tie-breaking provision is vulnerable to reversal because it can become sole parental responsibility in substance. Ultimate authority should be limited to concrete, identified subjects.
Can the court award sole parental responsibility over education alone?
The Second District held in Meyers that “sole parental responsibility” over education alone is not the correct statutory structure. The court may instead order shared responsibility with ultimate educational authority assigned to one parent when the evidence supports it.
Can one parent change the child’s school without permission?
Ordinarily not when the parents share educational responsibility. If they cannot agree, the dispute should be presented to the court unless the parenting plan already gives one parent ultimate educational authority.
Can either parent take the child to a doctor?
A parent may obtain emergency care and may ordinarily address routine health needs while the child is in that parent’s care. Significant nonemergency treatment may require consultation or agreement, depending on the parenting plan.
Can either parent consent to a child’s mental-health treatment?
When shared parental responsibility applies to health-care decisions, Florida law generally permits either parent to consent to mental-health treatment unless the parenting plan provides otherwise.
Can one parent enroll the child in sports, dance, or music lessons?
It depends on the plan and the commitment involved. A parent may be able to arrange an ordinary activity solely during that parent’s time and at that parent’s expense. An activity affecting the other parent’s time, transportation, finances, or the child’s long-term schedule may require agreement.
Can one parent buy the child a car?
A parent may be able to purchase a vehicle as a gift, but licensure, insurance, safety, liability, transportation, and use during both parents’ time can create major decision-making issues. The parent signing a minor’s license application may assume substantial liability under Florida law.
Can the court decide a specific issue when the parents are deadlocked?
Yes. A court can resolve a genuine impasse by receiving evidence and determining which result is in the child’s best interests.
Can a parenting coordinator make the final decision?
Only within narrow limits. With the required parental and court approval, a parenting coordinator may make limited, non-substantive decisions within the referral order. The coordinator cannot modify parental responsibility or substantially change time-sharing.
Can a mediator decide which parent is right?
No. A mediator facilitates negotiation but cannot impose a decision. If mediation does not produce an agreement, a parent with ultimate authority may decide within that assigned area, or the dispute may need to be presented to the court.
How is shared parental responsibility enforced?
A parent may seek enforcement, contempt, clarification, judicial resolution of an impasse, attorney’s fees when authorized, or modification. The appropriate remedy depends on the language of the existing order and the nature of the violation.
Speak With a Florida Parental Responsibility Lawyer
A decision-making dispute can affect where your child goes to school, which treatment your child receives, the activities your child pursues, and how both parents remain involved in the child’s life. The solution should be legally sound, factually supported, and precise enough to work outside the courtroom.
Call Mockler Leiner Law, P.A. at (813) 331-5699 or contact us online to discuss shared parental responsibility, ultimate decision-making authority, sole parental responsibility, enforcement, modification, mediation, or parenting coordination.
Strategy, Advocacy, Results.