FIRST DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS

        

THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT.  THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI.  INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.

 

DATE: Wednesday, November 5, 2025

CAPTION: IN RE: J.W.

APPEAL NO.: C-240566 

TRIAL NO.: F/19/875 X

KEY WORDS: JUVENILE — CUSTODY — PARENTING TIME — MODIFICATION — SHARED PARENTING — EVIDENCE — TESTIMONY — RELEVANCY — ABUSE OF DISCRETION — EVID.R. 401 — EVIDENCE PRESENTATION — MODE AND ORDER OF INTERROGATION 

SUMMARY: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding father parenting time where the juvenile court adopted mother’s proposed shared parenting plan with certain modifications that supported the best interest of the child: the juvenile court’s findings that child was adjusted to father’s home, father’s schedule accommodated increased parenting time, father had increased his participation in child’s life, and father was willing to communicate with mother were all supported by competent, credible evidence.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting testimony about mother’s alleged prior violence that occurred prior to the last custody order and prior to the child’s birth where the information was relevant to the current proceedings in that father offered the testimony to explain his behavior since the initial decree, including his trepidation in communicating with mother. 

The trial court did not provide father with any unfair advantage at trial due to the permitted mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence at trial where mother was ultimately permitted to cross-examine father on all his direct evidence, and she was permitted to testify in rebuttal to all of father’s testimony and was given the last word. 

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, J.; MOORE, J., CONCURS, and KINSLEY, P.J., CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY.

 

CAPTION: TOELKE V. WILLIAMS

APPEAL NO.: C-250005

TRIAL NO.: A-2304565

KEY WORDS: BREACH OF CONTRACT — LAND SALE — DEFAULT 

SUMMARY: The trial court’s decision in favor of plaintiff on her breach of contract claim was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the terms of the contract required defendants to pay a certain sum at the time of signing, and they failed to do so: defendants could not produce receipts of later, smaller payments to or on behalf of plaintiff. 

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED 

JUDGES: OPINION by NESTOR, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and BOCK, J., CONCUR.