Tortious Interference: 4. With the Parent-Child Relationship
1Elements and Case Citations
[MM_Access_Decision access='false']
- An intentional effort by the defendant to detract the child from the parent’s custody or service;
- The effort was willful; and
- The defendant knowingly invaded the child’s parent’s rights.
Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:
- The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
- The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
- The statute of limitations; and
- The defenses to this cause of action.
Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide
Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!
[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']- An intentional effort by the defendant to detract the child from the parent’s custody or service;
- The effort was willful; and
- The defendant knowingly invaded the child’s parent’s rights.
The Florida Supreme Court recognized a cause of action for Tortious Interference with the Parent/Child Relationship pursuant to a certified question from the Eleventh Circuit. See Stone v. Wall, 734 So. 2d 1038, 1042-1043 (Fla. 1999). The Florida Supreme Court’s decision was expressly limited to answering the narrow question posed by the Eleventh Circuit, which asked whether Florida recognized the cause of action. Thus, the above-listed elements are modeled on those adopted by other jurisdictions and noted by the Florida Supreme Court. See, e.g., Anonymous v. Anonymous, 672 So.2d 787, 790 (Ala.1995) (quoting 67A C.J.S. Parent & Child S 131 (1978)).
FLORIDA STATE COURTS
Supreme Court: Stone v. Wall, 734 So.2d 1038, 1042-1043 (Fla. 1999).
Fourth District: Stewart v. Walker, 5 So.3d 746, 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Brown v. Brown, 800 So.2d 359, 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS
Eleventh Circuit: McIndoo v. Broward Cty., 750 F. App’x. 816, 820 (11th Cir. 2018).
Southern District: Davis v. Broward Cty., Fla., No. 11-61819-CIV, 2012 WL 279433, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2012); Woodburn v. State Dept. of Child. and Fam. Serv., 854 F. Supp. 2d 1184, 1217 (S.D. Fla. 2011).
2 Defenses to Claim for Tortious Interference: 4. With the Parent-Child Relationship
(1) Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.
(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(p), Fla. Stat. (four years).
(3) Plaintiff did not have superior custodial rights. See Woodburn v. State Dept. of Child. and Fam. Serv., 854 F. Supp. 2d 1184, 1217 (S.D. Fla. 2011); Stewart v. Walker, 5 So.3d 746, 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Stone v. Wall, 734 So.2d 1038, 1042-1043 (Fla. 1999).
(4) Defendant took the child to prevent physical harm to the child. Stone v. Wall, 734 So.2d 1038, 1042-1043 (Fla. 1999); Brown v. Brown, 800 So.2d 359, 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
(5) Defendant possessed a reasonable, good faith belief that the interference was proper. Stone v. Wall, 734 So. 2d 1038, 1042-1043 (Fla. 1999); Brown v. Brown, 800 So.2d 359, 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).