Rajkishore Gorla v. Avneet Kaur Vig

No. 3D24-0706 · Florida Third District Court of Appeal · July 23, 2025 · No. 3D24-0706

Summary

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reviewed a final judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage and an order partially denying the husband’s motion for rehearing. The court affirmed the timesharing and controlled-substance testing conditions, finding them supported by competent, substantial evidence and not an abuse of discretion. It reversed the requirement that the husband alone pay testing and monitoring costs and remanded for those costs to be treated as part of the child support obligations.

Court
Florida Third District Court of Appeal
Writing for the Court
Miller, J.; Emas, J.; Bokor, J.
Jurisdiction
Florida Third District Court of Appeal
Decision date
July 23, 2025
Docket number
3D24-0706
Procedural posture
Husband appealed a final judgment dissolving the parties' marriage and an order denying in part his motion for rehearing.
Standard of review
Timesharing and parental-responsibility determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion; legal errors in applying the law are reviewed de novo.
Precedential value
Published opinion; precedential value is subject to the stated rehearing-finality qualification.
Parties
Rajkishore Gorla v. Avneet Kaur Vig
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

family law procedurechild custodychild supportstandard of reviewappellate procedure

Practice areas

family lawappellate procedurechild custodychild support

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying or restricting the husband's requested overnight, weekend, holiday, and school-recess timesharing.
  2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by conditioning the husband's timesharing on controlled-substance testing and monitoring.
  3. Whether the trial court erred by requiring the husband alone to pay the costs of testing and monitoring that were conditions of his timesharing.

Holdings

  1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying or restricting the husband's requested timesharing or in conditioning timesharing on controlled-substance testing and monitoring because its findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence.
  2. The trial court erred by requiring the husband alone to bear the costs of controlled-substance testing and monitoring when compliance with those requirements was a condition of his timesharing. Those costs must be treated as part of the parties' child-support obligations.

Key quotations

Because the findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence, we discern no abuse of discretion and affirm in all respects, save the requirement that the husband alone bear the costs of testing and monitoring. (2)
We therefore reverse the costs ruling with instructions to the trial court to treat them as part and parcel of the child support obligations. (3)

Factual background

The parties were involved in a high-conflict dissolution proceeding. The trial court restricted the husband's overnight, weekend, holiday, and school-recess timesharing and conditioned his timesharing on controlled-substance testing and monitoring. The trial court also required the husband alone to bear the costs of that testing and monitoring.

Procedural history

The Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County entered an 85-page final judgment dissolving the marriage, ruling on timesharing and related conditions, and later denied in part the husband's motion for rehearing. The husband appealed, challenging timesharing restrictions and the requirement that he undergo and pay for controlled-substance testing and monitoring. The Third District affirmed most rulings, reversed the allocation of testing and monitoring costs, and remanded.

Remand instructions

The trial court must treat the costs of controlled-substance testing and monitoring as part of the child-support obligations and determine the issue in that context.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…