Legal Topics

Child custody — Time-sharing — Modification — Change in circumstances — There has been substantial and material change in circumstances warranting modification of timesharing plan where father has made progress and gained insight into parental responsibilities during therapy — Exaggerated and unsupported allegations of father’s misconduct in attempting to act on legitimate and natural parental concerns for child’s gender dysphoria cannot be basis to withhold timesharing

Mar 31st, 2026 in by admin

Child custody — Time-sharing — Modification — Change in circumstances — There has been substantial and material change in circumstances warranting modification of timesharing plan where father has made progress and gained insight into parental responsibilities during therapy — Exaggerated and unsupported allegations of father’s misconduct in attempting to act on legitimate and natural parental concerns for child’s gender dysphoria cannot be basis to withhold timesharing

IN THE MATTER OF: PENELOPE SILVA, Petitioner/Former-Wife, and PEDRO VICENTE SILVA, Respondent/Former-Husband. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. FMCE-17-012838 (41). Division Weiss. November 4, 2025. Marlon J. Weiss, Judge.ORDER GRANTINGRESPONDENT/FORMER-HUSBAND’S VERIFIEDMOTION FOR ENTRY OF TIMESHARING PLAN

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the Respondent/Former Husband’s Verified Motion for Entry of Timesharing Plan. The Court, having reviewed the file, heard the testimony of the parties and witnesses, considered the evidence presented, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby GRANTS the motion, as follows:INTRODUCTION

The Respondent/Former-Husband (“Father”) moves the Court to modify his timesharing based on a substantial and material change in circumstances pursuant to Fla. Stat. §61.13(3). As it stands, the Father has extremely limited supervised timesharing with the teenage child based on prior allegations by the Petitioner/Former-Wife (“Mother”) of his bad temper and aggressive behavior toward the child, and a deteriorated relationship between the Father and child, emanating largely out of the Father’s refusal to fully accept the child’s gender identity decision. Meanwhile, the Father has alleged that the Mother alienated the child by sabotaging therapy sessions and speaking poorly of the Father to the child. The Mother denies alienation and opposes the Father’s timesharing proposal. This matter was called up for an evidentiary hearing on October 13, 2025.FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Court heard the testimony of the Father, the Mother, and therapist Brittany Cousins.

2. The Court was particularly moved by the Father’s testimony and demeanor at the hearing. The Court finds his testimony credible, genuine, and reflective of growth and maturity. The Father took his FACES therapeutic appointments seriously and demonstrated a newfound understanding of his parental responsibilities.

3. The testimony of Brittany Cousins, the treating therapist, mirrored and supported the Father’s account of progress and insight. Ms. Cousins credibly testified that the Father has made meaningful progress through the therapeutic process, demonstrating accountability and positive behavioral change.

4. As such, the Court finds that there has been a substantial and material change in circumstances since the entry of the prior timesharing order. The credibility of both the Father and Ms. Cousins and the Father’s completion of and success in therapeutic visitation establishes the necessary elements for modification.

5. The Court recognizes that both parents are caring and devoted to the minor child. However, the Father has now met his capacity to satisfy the elements necessary for a step-up timesharing plan under Florida law.

6. The Court was impressed by how the therapy process opened the Father’s mind to different, more constructive ways of interacting with his daughter, demonstrating his personal and emotional growth.

7. The Court determined that both parents possess the moral fitness to care for their daughter.

8. The Court specifically addresses the Mother’s proffer of alleged “misconduct” by the Father occurring when the child was thirteen years old in which Father commented on her body, and the Mother’s body, apparently in an effort to instruct the child regarding the sensitive topic of sexuality and gender identification. These allegations were first raised in a prior motion filed by the Mother on December 20, 2022. That motion served as the predicate for the Father’s limited timesharing. Based on the testimony of both parties, it appears the teenage daughter has (or had) a form of gender dysphoria, the contours of which are not entirely clear to the Court at this time.

9. Notwithstanding, the Court finds such allegations of the Father’s misconduct to be exaggerated and unsupported by competent evidence. Accepting the Mother’s proffer at face value, the Court finds that the Father’s intentions at the time, as adduced from his credible testimony, reflected a noble attempt to educate, even though his efforts arguably could have been undertaken in a more nuanced and productive fashion.

10. The Court emphasizes at this juncture that the Father’s concerns about his child’s gender identification and behaviors are legitimate and natural concerns that a parent has a fundamental right to investigate, question, and control as a matter of well-enshrined historical traditions, black letter statute, and controlling legal precepts regarding parental rights.

11. The Father’s legitimate parental concerns simply cannot be a basis to withhold timesharing because a parent has an irrefutable constitutional and statutory right and say-so over his child’s medical and biological decisions. See H.S. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 384 So. 3d 280, 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) [49 Fla. L. Weekly D722a] (“The father also has a lawful right to refuse to allow the child to seek any treatment furthering the child’s gender transition before adulthood.” (citing § 1014.04(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2023) (providing a parent “[t]he right to make health care decisions for his or her minor child, unless otherwise prohibited by law”))); Doe v. Uthmeier, 407 So. 3d 1281, 1291 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025) [50 Fla. L. Weekly D1111b] (holding “the invalidity of Florida’s maturity and best-interest judicial-waiver regimes under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause” based on fundamental parental rights to control abortion decisions of minor children).

12. Federal authorities abound. See, e.g., Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000) (plurality op.) (recognizing parental rights as “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court,” which includes the right “to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children”); Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 444-45 (1990) (plurality op.)(recognizing that a State’s “strong and legitimate interest in the welfare of its young citizens” is enough to justify “state-imposed requirements that a minor obtain his or her parent’s consent before undergoing an operation”); Parham v. J.R., 442, U.S. 584, 603 (1979) (explaining that parental rights include a child’s “need for medical care or treatment”); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (holding that parents have a fundamental constitutional right to rear their children).

13. In sum, the Court finds that the ostensible basis for the Mother’s opposition to timesharing is primarily the Father’s strong objection and desire to steer the teenage child’s gender decisions and/or behaviors, which apparently was the source of substantial family discord. In accordance with the clear text of Florida law as corroborated by historical traditions, the Court declines to weigh this fact against the Father in its timesharing determination.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

14. The Court concludes that the Father has met the legal standard for modifying timesharing under Fla. Stat. §61.13(3) and analyzes each element (a) through (t) for applicability. The Father’s testimony, together with other evidence presented, showed both a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances and that the requested modification is in the minor child’s best interest. The Father has shown personal growth and maturity and has taken steps to repair the relationship with his daughter. These efforts have been fruitful.

A. The Court notes that the Mother specifically consented and stipulated to unsupervised timesharing with the Father in open court, but apparently disagreed only with the pace of the timesharing step-up.

B. Accordingly, the Court finds that continuation of supervised therapeutic visitation is no longer necessary, and that a structured step-up timesharing plan is in the best interests of the child.

C. Further, the Court directs that family therapy occur with only the Father and minor child, and without the Mother.

It is, therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. The Father’s Motion for Step-Up Timesharing is hereby GRANTED.

2. Therapist Brittany Cousins shall first schedule a therapeutic meeting with the minor child to discuss the transition and implementation of the step-up plan.

3. Starting the week of October 20, 2025 – the Step-Up Timesharing Plan shall proceed over a nine-month transitional period, as follows:

Phase I (Months 1-3):

The Father shall have one (1) hour per week of evening visitation for a dinner with the minor child.

The parties shall coordinate the location and logistics via the Talking Parents app.

The Mother shall drop off and pick up the child at the designated location.

Phase II (Months 4-6):

The Father may attend two (2) school events or other extracurricular events per month with the minor child, for up to one hour each.

If no such events exist, the Father shall have two (2) one-hour weekly visits with the minor child, such as dinner, with the same drop-off and pick-up procedure as Phase I.

Phase III (Months 7-9):

The Father shall continue to have two (2) one-hour weekly visits as in Phase II.

The Father may also include his other family and/or girlfriend and/or daughter from another relationship during these visits, to promote healthy family integration.

The same drop-off and pick-up procedure as Phase I.

4. After the nine-month period is completed, the Court will review the progress of the step-up plan to determine whether overnight timesharing is appropriate with testimony from Brittany Cousins on the progress of the Father and minor child.

5. Supervised visitation is hereby terminated.

6. During the nine-month step-up period, the Father and the minor child shall continue participating in monthly Family Therapy sessions through FACES.

7. The cost of Family Therapy shall be shared 70% by the Father and 30% by the Mother, consistent with prior court orders.