## Facts

- Former spouses had one child; after dissolution, the mother received custody, the father received visitation, and the father was ordered to pay child support.
- The father later sought a reduction in support, claiming illness and job loss impaired his ability to pay.
- The trial court reduced the father’s child-support obligation.
- The mother testified the father had rarely complied with prior support obligations.
- The trial court found the father in willful contempt for nonpayment and terminated visitation unless and until he complied with the new, reduced support schedule.
- The father appealed the portion of the order terminating visitation.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may terminate a noncustodial parent’s visitation rights solely as a sanction for willful nonpayment of child support, absent a finding that the nonpayment is detrimental to the child’s welfare.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the portion of the order terminating visitation and remanded.
- The court held visitation cannot be terminated solely to enforce child-support obligations unless nonpayment is shown to be detrimental to the child’s welfare.
- Because the record contained no finding that the father’s visitation (or his nonpayment) harmed the child, the termination functioned as a punitive enforcement device rather than a child-welfare measure.

## Legal Principles

- Child support obligations and visitation rights are distinct; visitation may not be used as a routine enforcement mechanism for support arrearages.
- Visitation determinations are governed by the child’s best interests; severe restrictions or termination require a showing that continued visitation would be detrimental to the child’s welfare.
- Even where nonpayment is willful, termination of visitation is permissible only if the nonpayment (or related conduct) is shown to harm the child, and support enforcement should otherwise proceed through available collection and contempt remedies.

## Conclusion

The court reversed the termination of the father’s visitation because visitation cannot be cut off solely to punish or coerce payment of child support without evidence and findings that the parent’s nonpayment is detrimental to the child’s welfare; visitation must be decided under the child’s best interests rather than as a sanction.


Peterson v. Jason, 513 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 1987)