Florida Litigation Guide

Tortious Interference With the Parent-Child Relationship –

[1] Elements and Case Citations

(1) An intentional effort by the defendant to detract the child from the parent’s custody or service;

(2) The effort was willful; and

(3) 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 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)

[2] Defenses to Claim for Tortious Interference With the

Parent-Child Relationship

(1) Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses) and other standard defenses. See § 60.

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(p), Fla. Stat. (four years).

(3) Plaintiff did not have superior custodial rights. Stone v. Wall, 734 So. 2d 1038, 1042 (Fla. 1999).

(4) Defendant took the child to prevent physical harm to the child. Stone v. Wall, 734 So. 2d 1038, 1042 (Fla. 1999).

(5) Defendant possessed a reasonable, good faith belief that the interference was proper. Stone v. Wall, 734 So. 2d 1038, 1042 (Fla. 1999).