Case Summary
In Diana De Los Angeles Salazar v. Andre Ramon Blanco (Fla. 3d DCA, June 4, 2025), the Third District Court of Appeal reversed a final judgment of paternity and time sharing because the trial court failed to comply with the statutory requirements of section 61.13, Florida Statutes.
The case involved unmarried parents who represented themselves. The father filed a petition to establish paternity, shared parental responsibility, and a 50/50 timesharing schedule. The mother filed an answer opposing shared parental responsibility, alleging that the father had been absent for most of the child’s early life.
After a brief nonjury hearing, the trial court entered a final judgment awarding equal parental responsibility and a 50/50 schedule. The order lacked findings explaining how that arrangement served the child’s best interests. The trial court also ordered the mother to pay child support, including retroactive support for periods when the child lived primarily with her.
The appellate court reversed, finding the order legally insufficient. It directed the trial court to evaluate the best-interest factors listed in section 61.13(3), create or approve a proper parenting plan, and correct the child-support ruling.
This decision carries practical lessons for any parent litigating custody or support issues in Florida and for every Tampa divorce lawyer ensuring trial courts comply with statutory mandates before entering final judgments.
1. The Background of Salazar v. Blanco
Diana Salazar and Andre Blanco are unmarried parents of a young child. The father filed a petition to determine paternity, parental responsibility, and child support, seeking equal timesharing. The mother opposed shared parental responsibility and asked for temporary support, supervised visitation, and therapy to help the child get to know the father, who had been absent since birth.
The record showed that the mother provided full care for the child, including health insurance and daily expenses. The court set a trial date for September 2024. No transcript existed for the brief nonjury hearing.
The next day, the court entered a final judgment granting shared parental responsibility and equal timesharing on alternating weeks. The order did not discuss the child’s age, developmental needs, or the mother’s claim that the father had little prior relationship with the child. The order also lacked a parenting plan, defined holidays, or clear rules for medical and school decisions.
The court required the mother to pay monthly child support of $156.49 and retroactive support of $3,755.76, covering a period when the child resided entirely with her.
A Tampa divorce lawyer reading this record would immediately see procedural and substantive errors that violate Florida’s statutory framework for parenting cases.
2. The Legal Requirements Under Section 61.13
Florida law demands a detailed analysis of a child’s best interests before a court can establish or modify a parenting plan. Section 61.13(3) lists twenty separate factors that judges must evaluate. These include:
- The child’s needs and developmental stage;
- Each parent’s ability to foster a relationship with the other parent;
- Stability of the home environment;
- Moral fitness and mental health of each parent;
- Each parent’s involvement in school, health care, and extracurricular activities;
- History of domestic violence or substance abuse; and
- Evidence of parental communication and cooperation.
While the statute does not require written findings for every factor, the record must show that the trial court consideredthem. Without those findings, appellate courts cannot confirm whether the judgment truly reflects the child’s best interests.
In Salazar v. Blanco, nothing in the record indicated that any of the statutory factors were reviewed. The final judgment contained one sentence: “The Court finds that it is in the best interest of the minor child that the parties have shared parental responsibility.” That statement was insufficient under section 61.13.
A Tampa divorce lawyer knows that appellate courts routinely reverse orders that ignore or summarize best-interest analysis in a single sentence.
3. The Missing Parenting Plan
Section 61.13(2)(b) requires the court to create or approve a written parenting plan that establishes:
- How the parents will share responsibilities for raising the child;
- The time-sharing schedule;
- Which parent’s address determines school zoning and registration;
- Health-care decision-making authority; and
- Methods for resolving disputes and handling travel or extracurricular costs.
Neither party’s proposed plan was adopted, and the court did not create one of its own. The absence of a parenting plan made the judgment noncompliant with Florida law.
Without clear directives on school, medical care, holidays, or financial responsibilities, future disputes were inevitable. The appellate court cited Magdziak v. Sullivan (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) to emphasize that failure to attach or incorporate a parenting plan renders the judgment defective.
A Tampa divorce lawyer helps clients draft detailed parenting plans to prevent these omissions and ensure compliance before the court signs any final judgment.
4. The Error in Retroactive Child Support
The trial court ordered the mother to pay retroactive child support for periods when the child was living primarily with her. That ruling directly violated precedent. Courts cannot require a parent to pay support for any time when the child resided in that parent’s care.
The Third District cited Velasquez v. Millan (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) for this rule. The appellate panel reversed the retroactive support award and instructed the trial court to correct it on remand.
A Tampa divorce lawyer can ensure that child-support calculations reflect actual custodial time and that retroactive periods are handled correctly under section 61.30.
5. Why the Appellate Court Reversed
The reversal in Salazar v. Blanco rested on two independent grounds:
- Failure to evaluate the best-interest factors. The trial court’s single-sentence finding was not enough.
- Failure to create or approve a parenting plan. Florida law mandates a written plan in every parenting case.
The court also corrected the retroactive child-support error. The appellate panel’s instructions were clear: on remand, the trial court must address all statutory factors, make specific findings about the child’s best interests, and enter a proper parenting plan.
A Tampa divorce lawyer can use this case as a blueprint when requesting reversal of judgments that skip statutory steps or lack sufficient analysis.
6. Why Best-Interests Analysis Protects Children
The best-interests standard is not a procedural formality. It protects children by forcing courts to weigh every aspect of their wellbeing—safety, stability, emotional development, and parental reliability—before approving a parenting arrangement.
When courts skip that analysis, children risk being placed in arrangements that ignore developmental needs or fail to account for history and safety.
A Tampa divorce lawyer ensures that trial judges consider the evidence fully, document their reasoning, and create parenting plans that minimize future conflict and confusion.
7. Lessons About Representing Yourself in Family Court
Both parents represented themselves. Without legal counsel, they may not have known how to submit proper evidence or request findings. The appellate record showed incomplete filings, missing transcripts, and vague requests.
When parents appear pro se, judges still must follow the law. But self-represented litigants often struggle to ensure the record includes the necessary facts for appeal.
A Tampa divorce lawyer helps parents avoid this problem by preserving evidence, submitting statutory factor charts, and requesting that findings appear on the record or in the written order.
8. The Role of Transcripts in Appeals
The appellate court emphasized that without a transcript, its review was limited to errors apparent on the face of the judgment. It could not evaluate testimony or evidence from the hearing.
Fortunately for the mother, the errors were legal and clear on the face of the order. In most cases, however, lack of a transcript prevents successful appeals.
A Tampa divorce lawyer always recommends hiring a court reporter for key hearings. Transcripts preserve the factual record necessary to challenge legal mistakes later.
9. Parenting Factors Courts Must Consider on Remand
On remand, the trial court must evaluate all relevant factors in section 61.13(3). Among them:
- Each parent’s demonstrated capacity to maintain a close relationship with the child;
- The anticipated division of parental responsibilities after litigation;
- The moral and physical health of each parent;
- The child’s home, school, and community record;
- The reasonable preference of the child, if of sufficient age; and
- Evidence of domestic violence or abuse.
Courts must show that these factors were considered, either verbally during the hearing or in the written judgment.
A Tampa divorce lawyer ensures these factors are presented clearly through testimony, exhibits, and closing arguments.
10. Building a Legally Sound Parenting Plan
A compliant parenting plan includes:
- Time-sharing schedule: Week-to-week, holidays, and vacation periods;
- Decision-making structure: Which parent handles medical, educational, and extracurricular matters;
- School zone address: Determines school enrollment and boundary eligibility;
- Financial provisions: How parents divide costs for activities and care;
- Travel terms: Procedures for exchanges, transportation costs, and out-of-state trips;
- Communication rules: Frequency and method of calls, texts, or video chats.
A Tampa divorce lawyer crafts parenting plans that balance clarity with flexibility, preventing post-judgment disputes.
11. Child Support Principles Reinforced by This Case
Florida’s child-support guidelines use each parent’s income, time-sharing schedule, and childcare costs to calculate monthly obligations. Retroactive support usually applies only to the period after the filing of a petition.
A court cannot impose support payments for months when the paying parent already supported the child directly. Doing so results in double payment and violates equity.
The appellate correction in Salazar v. Blanco underscores the importance of accurate time-sharing documentation and proper income verification.
A Tampa divorce lawyer can ensure support orders reflect the real living arrangements and comply with section 61.30.
12. Practical Guidance for Parents in Similar Situations
Parents who share a child outside of marriage must ensure that:
- A formal parenting plan is drafted and approved by the court;
- The plan addresses all statutory elements, including school, health, and holidays;
- The court enters clear findings about the child’s best interests; and
- Child-support calculations match actual custody arrangements.
A Tampa divorce lawyer can structure these filings properly and avoid the pitfalls that led to reversal in Salazar v. Blanco.
13. Why Courts Require Detailed Findings
Detailed findings serve several purposes:
- They allow appellate courts to review the reasoning behind parenting decisions.
- They help parents understand their obligations and rights.
- They prevent inconsistent enforcement or future modification confusion.
When courts skip those findings, they fail both the parents and the child. The appellate reversal in Salazar v. Blancoreinforces that courts must document how and why each decision serves the child’s best interests.
A Tampa divorce lawyer ensures these details appear in every order.
14. Common Errors That Lead to Reversal
- No record of section 61.13 factors.
- Failure to adopt or attach a parenting plan.
- Vague time-sharing schedules without holiday definitions.
- Incorrect child-support calculations or retroactive awards.
- Missing transcripts that prevent meaningful review.
A Tampa divorce lawyer prevents these issues by insisting on compliance at every step and preserving the record for appeal if needed.
15. The Broader Lesson About Family-Court Oversight
The Salazar v. Blanco ruling highlights that appellate courts play an essential oversight role in protecting statutory rights. Trial judges have discretion, but that discretion must operate within the boundaries of Florida law.
When courts fail to apply the statute, reversals follow. These decisions also educate trial judges, reminding them that short, conclusory orders cannot substitute for reasoned findings.
A Tampa divorce lawyer keeps the process accountable by insisting that courts make transparent, evidence-based decisions.
16. Preparing for Hearings When Representing a Parent
Parents can strengthen their case by:
- Bringing organized evidence about daily routines, school performance, and expenses;
- Presenting testimony from teachers, family, or medical providers;
- Submitting written proposals for time-sharing and parenting plans; and
- Requesting that the judge state on the record how each statutory factor was considered.
A Tampa divorce lawyer coordinates these efforts to ensure the record reflects full compliance with section 61.13.
17. The Role of Pro Se Litigants in Family Law
Florida’s family courts see many self-represented parents. Judges often try to guide them, but courts cannot ignore statutory obligations even when parties lack lawyers.
The Third District noted that the mother had “no adequate representation to advocate her position.” That circumstance reinforced the reversal because the trial court failed to protect her statutory rights.
A Tampa divorce lawyer can help even self-represented parents on a limited-scope basis, drafting key documents or attending critical hearings to safeguard compliance.
18. The Broader Policy Behind Section 61.13
Section 61.13 embodies Florida’s policy that children deserve frequent and continuing contact with both parents whenever consistent with their welfare. It balances this policy with safety and developmental concerns.
Proper findings allow courts to demonstrate that they have honored this policy while still addressing each family’s unique situation.
A Tampa divorce lawyer upholds this policy by presenting evidence that helps judges craft parenting plans reflecting the true best interests of each child.
19. Next Steps After Reversal
When a case is remanded, the trial court must:
- Conduct a new hearing if necessary;
- Consider all twenty statutory factors;
- Create or approve a compliant parenting plan; and
- Correct the child-support order to remove improper retroactive charges.
Parents should treat remand hearings as new opportunities to present comprehensive evidence and workable parenting proposals.
A Tampa divorce lawyer can prepare revised plans, gather expert input, and ensure that the new judgment meets all legal standards.
20. The Takeaway for Florida Parents
The Salazar v. Blanco decision sends a clear message:
Courts must follow statutory procedure when deciding custody and support. Shortcuts are not permitted. Parenting plans and best-interest findings are not optional.
Parents must build strong, well-documented cases and ensure that judgments address every required element. When courts fail to do so, appellate reversal is likely.
A Tampa divorce lawyer helps families navigate these rules, protect parental rights, and ensure that every order reflects the law and the child’s true best interests.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What did the appellate court decide in Salazar v. Blanco?
The Third District reversed the trial court’s judgment because it failed to consider the statutory best-interest factors and did not include a proper parenting plan.
2. Why were written findings necessary?
They were needed to show that the judge considered all the best-interest factors listed in section 61.13. Without them, the order was legally insufficient.
3. What is a parenting plan?
It is a written document detailing each parent’s rights and responsibilities regarding their child, including time-sharing, school, health care, and travel.
4. Can a parent be ordered to pay child support for a time when the child lived with them?
No. Courts cannot require a parent to pay support for periods when they were the child’s primary caregiver.
5. What happens when there is no transcript of the trial?
The appellate court can only review errors of law visible on the face of the order. Factual issues generally cannot be reconsidered.
6. Why is the best-interests standard so important?
It ensures that custody and parenting decisions protect the child’s wellbeing rather than focusing solely on parental preferences.
7. What must a trial court include in a parenting plan?
Details about time-sharing schedules, school and medical decisions, holiday arrangements, and financial responsibilities.
8. What should parents do if a court order lacks statutory findings?
Consult a Tampa divorce lawyer to consider an appeal or a motion for rehearing requesting compliance with section 61.13.
9. Can self-represented parents succeed on appeal?
Yes, if the legal error is apparent on the face of the judgment, as in this case. However, legal representation increases the chance of success.
10. How can a Tampa divorce lawyer help in similar cases?
By ensuring all statutory factors are presented, a full parenting plan is drafted, and child-support calculations comply with Florida law, protecting both parent and child.
If you are navigating a custody or paternity case, consult an experienced Tampa divorce lawyer. Proper findings and a compliant parenting plan are not just legal formalities—they are essential safeguards for your child’s wellbeing and your parental rights.