OLIVER v. OLIVER (2022)

Affirmed. See Sordo v. Camblin, 130 So. 3d 743, 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“We review a trial court's modification of timesharing for an abuse of discretion, and we must affirm if the trial court's order is supported by competent substantial evidence”); Lewis v. Juliano, 242 So. 3d 1146, 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (“A trial court's ruling on a timesharing issue is reviewed for an abuse of discretion”). See also Empire World Towers, LLC v. CDR Creances, S.A.S., 89 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (holding trial court's adoption of party's proposed order “did not run afoul of” Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2004), noting there were no inconsistencies between the adopted order and the trial court's earlier oral pronouncement and the other party was provided a meaningful opportunity to offer comments or objections); Dickson v. Curtis, No. 3D21-1086, 338 So.3d 1001, 1004–05 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 9, 2022) (holding trial court did not delegate its decision-making authority by adopting a party's proposed order, and noting that Perlow “did not prohibit a trial judge from adopting verbatim the proposed order of one of the parties,” but did “caution that a party's proposed order ‘cannot substitute for a thoughtful and independent analysis of the facts, issues, and law by the trial judge’ ”) (quoting Perlow, 875 So. 2d at 390).

PER CURIAM.