Mohammed v. Ali (n/k/a Bradford)
The father appealed a final judgment modifying the parties' parenting plan, which contained a clause providing that if the parents disagreed about the child's medical treatment, they would obtain a 'binding' second opinion. The Fourth District held the clause unlawfully delegated the court's decision-making authority under section 61.13(2)(c) to a third party and reversed only that portion, remanding for an amended judgment removing the clause.
Key facts
- Father appealed a final judgment modifying the parties' parenting plan that included a clause requiring the parents to obtain a 'binding' second opinion from a third party if they disagreed about the child's medical treatment.
- The trial court approved the parenting plan modification with the binding second-opinion clause as part of the shared parental responsibility arrangement.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
Practitioners drafting or defending shared parental responsibility provisions should avoid 'tie-breaker' clauses that make a third party's opinion binding; the Fourth District now squarely holds such mechanisms are an… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.