What you need to know about Florida’s guardianship law
An ongoing legal battle between Florida and two Florida residents has resulted in a temporary guardians’ ruling for two women who say they are unable to pay child support due to a “fraudulent” Florida statute.
In the latest legal battle over the state’s “Temporary Guardianship Act,” which has been in place since 2004, Florida’s legislature has attempted to ban certain types of child support payments and to limit the number of children in custody.
The Florida Supreme Court has upheld a temporary ruling by Florida’s House of Representatives, which was overturned on Friday by the Florida Supreme Courts.
In a ruling issued Friday, the Florida House voted to override a judge’s temporary order allowing the children to continue to be in the custody of the state of Florida.
The ruling by the state House of Representative overturned a district court ruling that denied the children access to a temporary court order that allowed the children’s visitation with their parents.
The Supreme Court issued a ruling that allowed two Florida parents, who are both attorneys and have been in the same case for years, to get a temporary restraining order.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court explained that Florida’s Temporary Guardianship Law “requires the parents to be financially independent and not financially dependent on the other parent for child support” while the state has no income limitation for parents under its laws.
The ruling also states that “the parties are required to provide information about the financial circumstances of the parties and the amount of child custody or visitation payments they have made, and the number and frequency of child visitation payments.”
The ruling was in response to a motion filed by the parents last week to have the temporary ruling invalidated, as they did not provide sufficient information to support their request.
The motion was also filed in the Florida Court of Appeal.
The state’s motion said the temporary order was “not legally enforceable, and has no legal effect in the event of an appeal to the United States Supreme Court.”
In the Supreme Judicial Court case, a Florida couple, Lisa and John O’Hara, were born in Mexico but have lived in the United Kingdom since they were 15 years old.
The couple’s attorney, William Kallstrom, has been fighting the Florida ruling and is scheduled to file a petition in the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.
According to Kallstadt, the U and F courts have upheld the temporary Guardians’ Orders for the Florida couple.
He told Business Insider that the temporary orders are not only valid, but have also helped to reduce child support for the O’Haras.
In an email, Kallsted said the Florida court has also allowed him to get an additional $50,000 from the Florida child support enforcement office for the couple.
In addition, Kaltris attorney has filed a motion in the federal court of appeals in New York asking the court to allow the O’thars to apply for and receive a court order.
Kallstaas motion says the Florida order “has the effect of excluding and barring the O’s from ever having to provide any child support payment for child custody.”
The Florida ruling was a victory for Kallsterts team, but also a setback for Florida’s temporary Guardians.
The Florida House of representatives also overruled a district judge ruling that found the temporary guardians order to be “unenforceable.”
The Florida Supreme court is scheduled on Monday to issue a ruling on whether the temporary injunction can be lifted.
The O’ths, however, are not alone in the fight against Florida’s Guardianship law.
In February, the United Methodist Church in Massachusetts filed a lawsuit against the state.
The church argues that Florida has an unconstitutional provision that makes the state unable to enforce a child support obligation.
Church also sued on behalf of the O’.
Haras, claiming that the state violated their constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by forcing them to pay the court’s order to support.
The lawsuit, filed in Massachusetts Superior Court, seeks to have Florida’s provision of a temporary injunction invalidated.
The case is U.C.L.A. v. Florida.