A Florida court recently reversed a custody ruling in a divorce case involving Sherran Lane-Hepburn, now known as Sherran Auld, and Justin Warner Hepburn. The court found that the previous judgment did not adequately consider the rights of the parents and the best interests of the children. This ruling affects the custody arrangements for three children, including one child whose paternity is not linked to Mr. Hepburn.
The case, filed under docket number 2D18-4812, highlights the complexities of custody decisions when non-biological parents are involved. The court's decision underscores the importance of ensuring that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their case in custody matters.
Background
Sherran Auld and Justin Hepburn were married in November 2007. At the time of their marriage, Auld had a minor child from a previous relationship, whose paternity had already been established. Mr. Hepburn is not the biological father of this child, but after their marriage, the child's last name was legally changed to Hepburn. The couple had two children together during their marriage.
In May 2016, Mr. Hepburn filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. A default final judgment was issued in October 2016, which included a parenting plan that granted Mr. Hepburn all timesharing rights with the children. The plan stated that Auld could only see the children when Mr. Hepburn agreed. Following the judgment, Auld filed a petition to set aside the dissolution judgment, claiming she had not been properly served and that the best interests of the children were not considered.
Auld's initial petition was not ruled upon, leading her attorney to file an amended motion to vacate the judgment in 2018. This motion reiterated her claims and sought to modify the parenting plan. However, the trial court denied her motion. Soon after, Mr. Hepburn sought an emergency motion for a child pick-up order, which the court granted.
The Ruling
The court ruled in favor of Auld, reversing the trial court's decision to deny her motion to vacate the final judgment of dissolution. The court emphasized that in cases involving minor children, a court cannot enter a default final judgment without allowing the defaulting parent an opportunity to present evidence regarding child custody.
The court stated, "the 'best interest of the child' standard precludes a determination of child custody based on a parent's default."
This ruling was made by Judge Black, with Judges Kelly and Villanti concurring. The court highlighted that Mr. Hepburn, not being the biological or legal father of Auld's oldest child, did not have rights to timesharing with that child. The court noted that while Mr. Hepburn had been a father figure, the law does not grant visitation rights to non-parents.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for custody cases in Florida, particularly those involving non-biological parents. The court's decision reinforces the principle that custody arrangements must prioritize the best interests of the children and ensure that both parents have a fair chance to present their case.
Going forward, the ruling may influence how courts handle similar cases, ensuring that default judgments do not undermine parental rights. The court's decision also clarifies that non-parents do not have the same rights as biological or legal parents, which may affect future custody disputes involving step-parents or other caregivers.
What's Next
The case has been remanded to the lower court for further proceedings, where an evidentiary hearing will be held to determine the best interests of the two children involved. The oldest child will be excluded from any future orders unless evidence is presented to establish Mr. Hepburn's legal status as the father. Details were not available in the court filing about the possibility of an appeal.