In John A. Saladino v. Erika F. Saladino (Fla. 6th DCA, June 20, 2025), the Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s contempt order that had suspended a father’s timesharing, awarded the mother sole parental responsibility, and required the father to undergo a psychological evaluation.
The appellate court held that the trial court violated the father’s due process rights because the mother never requested those forms of relief in her motion. The court also found that the trial court erred in finding the father in contempt for violating a standing order that had expired once the final judgment was entered.
Although the appellate court acknowledged the trial judge’s concern for the child’s welfare, it emphasized that due process protects all litigants, even when their behavior seems troubling. The decision clarifies that Florida judges may not impose unrequested sanctions or rely on expired temporary orders to justify contempt.
For Florida families, and for every Tampa divorce lawyer guiding clients through post-judgment disputes, Saladinooffers a critical reminder: fairness, notice, and procedure remain cornerstones of family law.
1. The Core Issues in Saladino v. Saladino
The appeal involved three questions:
- Whether the trial court violated due process by granting unrequested relief;
- Whether the court could hold the husband in contempt for violating a standing order that had expired;
- Whether the post-judgment sanctions, including the psychological evaluation, were legally permissible.
The appellate court answered all three in favor of the former husband. It held that the trial court acted beyond its authority by issuing relief that the wife had not sought and by enforcing an order that no longer existed.
A Tampa divorce lawyer can draw from this case when advising clients about post-judgment enforcement and contempt proceedings, particularly those involving parenting plans or alleged noncompliance.
2. What Happened Before the Appeal
John and Erika Saladino married in 2006 and had one child. The husband filed for divorce in 2022. During the case, the court entered a standard standing order. That order governed temporary behavior—maintaining insurance, limiting financial changes, and protecting the status quo—until the court entered a final judgment.
The parties later reached a parenting plan granting shared parental responsibility, with the mother having majority timesharing. The trial continued on remaining financial issues.
Before the final judgment was issued, the mother filed a motion for contempt. She alleged that the father had failed to maintain car insurance and was not following the parenting plan. After the final judgment, she filed an amended motion alleging that the father had refused to return the child and that law enforcement and child-welfare agencies had received calls about her.
Importantly, neither the original nor the amended motion requested suspension of the father’s timesharing, transfer of sole parental responsibility, or a psychological evaluation.
A Tampa divorce lawyer would recognize that omission as critical: due process requires advance notice of any relief the court might impose.
3. The Trial Court’s Ruling
At the contempt hearing, the father did not appear. The court heard only the mother’s testimony, which generally tracked her amended motion. After expressing concern about the father’s behavior, the court took several steps beyond the mother’s request:
- It awarded the mother sole parental responsibility;
- It suspended the father’s timesharing until further order;
- It required the father to undergo a psychological evaluation before seeking reinstatement; and
- It found the father in contempt of the standing order, even though that order expired with the final judgment.
The appellate court later ruled that these actions violated due process and exceeded the court’s authority.
4. The Due Process Violation
Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. A judge cannot impose relief that was never requested or that exceeds the issues set for hearing.
The appellate court cited Pavilion at Healthpark, LLC v. S.M. and Kirkpatrick Trust v. Lakeview Loan Services, LLC, reaffirming that a trial court deprives due process when it expands a hearing’s scope without notice.
The wife’s motion never asked for suspension of timesharing or a psychological evaluation. The hearing, therefore, could not lawfully result in those sanctions.
A Tampa divorce lawyer can rely on Saladino to protect clients from surprise rulings. If an opposing party fails to specify requested relief, the court cannot impose it.
5. When Relief Must Match the Motion
Florida law holds that the requested relief in a motion sets the boundaries of the hearing. If a party wants a change in custody, timesharing, or parental responsibility, that request must appear clearly in writing. The other side must receive notice and a chance to respond.
The Saladino court emphasized that granting unrequested relief violates due process unless the issue is tried by consent. Here, no such consent existed. The hearing focused only on alleged contempt, not on parenting-plan modification.
A Tampa divorce lawyer ensures that every motion clearly outlines what the client seeks, preventing procedural vulnerabilities and ensuring valid notice to the other party.
6. Contempt of an Expired Standing Order
The second issue involved the trial court’s finding that the husband violated its prejudgment standing order by failing to maintain insurance coverage. The standing order stated that it would remain effective only “until entry of the final judgment.” Once the final judgment was entered, the standing order expired automatically.
The appellate court ruled that a court cannot enforce an expired temporary order. Once final judgment replaces the temporary framework, prior directives lose legal effect unless the judgment expressly preserves them.
This ruling aligns with Jackson v. Jackson and McFatter v. McFatter, which also held that contempt cannot be based on expired orders.
For a Tampa divorce lawyer, this means a client cannot be punished for violating a temporary provision once the final judgment supersedes it.
7. Proper Procedure for Post-Judgment Enforcement
If a parent believes the other has violated post-judgment obligations, the remedy is to file a motion for contempt or enforcement of the final judgment, not the expired standing order. The moving party must:
- Cite specific provisions of the final judgment or parenting plan allegedly violated;
- Provide evidence of noncompliance; and
- Request particular relief.
The responding party must then have notice and a chance to defend.
A Tampa divorce lawyer helps clients navigate this process carefully, ensuring that procedural safeguards remain intact.
8. Psychological Evaluations Require Notice
The appellate court also addressed the trial court’s order requiring the husband to undergo a psychological evaluation. The wife had not requested this, and the issue was not tried by consent. Florida courts have reversed similar orders in Oddo v. Oddo and Moody v. Moody, where judges imposed psychological testing without notice.
Judges can order evaluations when evidence suggests mental-health concerns affect parenting, but they must follow procedure:
- The motion must specifically request the evaluation.
- The court must give notice and opportunity for objection.
- Findings must support why the evaluation serves the child’s best interests.
A Tampa divorce lawyer can protect clients from improper orders and ensure that evaluations occur only under lawful conditions.
9. Emergency Situations vs. Due Process
Courts can act swiftly in true emergencies to protect a child, but they must document the emergency and provide follow-up hearings with full due process. In Saladino, the appellate court found no record of an emergency. The trial court’s concern about the father’s behavior did not override procedural requirements.
On remand, the court may revisit those issues if it gives proper notice or if a verified emergency arises.
A Tampa divorce lawyer can request emergency relief correctly—through a verified motion showing immediate risk of harm—to ensure the order survives appellate review.
10. The Balancing Act: Child Safety and Constitutional Rights
The appellate court recognized that the trial judge acted from a place of concern for the child’s welfare. Yet it reaffirmed that protecting children must still occur within constitutional boundaries. When due process is ignored, even well-intentioned rulings cannot stand.
This principle balances parental rights with child safety. Florida courts can restrict timesharing or parental responsibility, but only after notice, hearing, and findings supported by evidence.
A Tampa divorce lawyer upholds both sides of that balance: advocating for child safety while insisting on fair procedure.
11. How This Decision Impacts Florida Parents
For parents, Saladino sends a clear message. Courts cannot unilaterally suspend timesharing or impose evaluations without notice. Parents have the right to know what relief the other party seeks and to prepare a defense.
If a parent fails to appear at a hearing, the court may still rule on the motion’s contents, but it cannot expand the scope beyond what was pled.
A Tampa divorce lawyer can help parents understand these limits and protect them from overreach.
12. Key Takeaways for Practitioners
- Always specify the requested relief in the motion.
- Confirm that contempt claims rely on valid, current orders.
- Avoid relying on expired standing orders.
- Demand clear findings before psychological evaluations.
- Verify that written orders match what was said in court.
A Tampa divorce lawyer should keep these steps in mind at every stage of post-judgment litigation.
13. The Role of Standing Orders in Florida Divorce Cases
Every Florida circuit court issues a standard “standing order” when a divorce begins. It preserves the marital estate, restricts harassment, and maintains insurance coverage. However, the order is temporary. Once a final judgment is entered, its purpose ends.
Some litigants mistakenly believe they can seek contempt for violating a standing order months or years later. Saladinoclarifies that they cannot.
A Tampa divorce lawyer can explain this distinction early in the case, preventing wasted effort and improper filings.
14. The Consequences of Procedural Errors
Procedural errors have real consequences. When courts skip notice or rely on expired orders, entire rulings collapse on appeal. That delay can cost families time, money, and emotional peace.
The Saladino reversal shows that appellate courts scrutinize family-law contempt cases closely. They will not excuse due process violations, even in cases involving serious allegations.
A Tampa divorce lawyer ensures every motion, notice, and order follows proper form, reducing risk of reversal.
15. Protecting Parental Rights After Divorce
Parental responsibility and timesharing are fundamental rights under Florida law. Any modification requires clear evidence and compliance with statutory procedures under section 61.13. Courts cannot make such changes through contempt proceedings unless proper pleadings and notice exist.
The Saladino case reinforces that line. The mother’s contempt motion did not invoke section 61.13 or seek modification, so the court’s order changing custody was void.
A Tampa divorce lawyer uses this case to challenge overreaching contempt orders that attempt to modify parenting without notice.
16. How to Lawfully Seek Parenting Modifications
If a parent believes a child is at risk or that circumstances have substantially changed, the correct procedure is to file a petition to modify parental responsibility or timesharing. The petition must:
- State the factual basis for the requested change;
- Include verified allegations of substantial, material change;
- Request specific relief; and
- Serve the other party with notice and opportunity to respond.
A Tampa divorce lawyer can draft such a petition properly, ensuring any change holds up in court.
17. Lessons for Judges and Family Courts
The appellate opinion also serves as guidance for trial judges. Even in high-conflict or emotional cases, courts must confine their rulings to the issues noticed for hearing. If emergencies arise, they must be handled through verified pleadings and documented findings.
This structure preserves both fairness and safety.
A Tampa divorce lawyer who practices before Florida family judges can cite Saladino to remind the court of these due process limits.
18. The Broader Constitutional Principle
At its core, Saladino v. Saladino is about constitutional fairness. Family law operates within the same due process protections that govern all civil cases. A parent’s rights cannot be curtailed without proper procedure.
The case reinforces Florida’s commitment to both parental fairness and judicial discipline. Even when one parent’s conduct raises legitimate concerns, courts must proceed by the rules.
A Tampa divorce lawyer integrates this principle into every argument before the court.
19. Practical Guidance for Families in Tampa
For Tampa families navigating post-divorce conflict:
- Ensure all motions specify the relief requested.
- Verify that court orders are still active before seeking enforcement.
- Attend every hearing, but know that absent parties still retain procedural rights.
- Document all communication and compliance efforts.
Working with a Tampa divorce lawyer who understands appellate precedent can prevent future complications and protect both parental rights and child welfare.
20. The Takeaway
The appellate decision in Saladino v. Saladino stands for two clear propositions:
- Courts must honor due process by limiting rulings to the issues noticed for hearing.
- Standing orders expire upon entry of final judgment and cannot serve as a basis for post-judgment contempt.
The case reminds everyone involved in family law that justice depends on fairness, notice, and adherence to the rule of law.
For clients and practitioners alike, it underscores the value of preparation and precision guided by an experienced Tampa divorce lawyer.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What did the appellate court decide in Saladino v. Saladino?
The court reversed a contempt order that suspended a father’s timesharing, gave the mother sole parental responsibility, and required a psychological evaluation because none of that relief was requested in the motion.
2. Why did the appellate court find a due process violation?
Because the father received no notice that the court might change custody or order an evaluation. Relief must match what the motion requests.
3. Can a court suspend timesharing without notice?
Not unless there is a verified emergency. Even then, the court must hold a full hearing as soon as possible to restore due process.
4. What happens to standing orders after a final judgment?
They expire automatically unless the final judgment explicitly keeps them in effect.
5. Can someone be held in contempt for violating an expired order?
No. Contempt applies only to valid, active orders.
6. How should a parent seek to modify custody or timesharing?
By filing a petition to modify under section 61.13, supported by verified facts showing a substantial, material change in circumstances.
7. Can a court order a psychological evaluation without a request?
No. The motion must specifically ask for it, and the court must give notice and a chance to respond.
8. What qualifies as an emergency allowing immediate action?
Evidence of imminent danger or harm to the child. The court must document the emergency and hold a follow-up hearing.
9. What should parents do if they receive a contempt motion?
Read it carefully, note what relief is requested, and contact a Tampa divorce lawyer immediately to prepare a response.
10. Why is Saladino v. Saladino important for Tampa families?
It protects parental rights by ensuring that Florida courts follow due process, limiting rulings to properly noticed issues, and preventing enforcement of expired orders.
If you are facing a post-judgment contempt motion or parenting dispute, contact an experienced Tampa divorce lawyer. Proper notice, preparation, and evidence can protect your rights and ensure fair treatment under Florida law.