BEWARE-Without a transcript the appellate court is limited to finding a mistake of law on the face of the Order appealed.

In the recent case of Jeffers v. McLeary, 38 FLW D1629a (Fla. 4th DCA) opinion fied July 31, 2013.
he father appealed, notably without a transcript, the timesharing provision in a Final Judgment of Paternity on the grounds that it failed to specifically address the best interest of the child. The DCA found that while the order was not fundamentally defective becasue it failed to include the required findings, they had to reverse becasue the record was clear that the court failed to consider the Father's evidence. The trial court entered an emended final judgment of paternity setting a time-sharing schedule following a hearing that the father failed to attend without holding an evidentiary hearing on the father's motion for rehearing, or, in the alternative, relief from judgment at which the father could present evidence regarding the best interests of the child. Because an order setting time-sharing implicates the best interests of the child, the trial court should give both parents an opportunity to put on evidence. The amended final judgement was not fundamentally defective because if failed to include explicit findings on the best interest of the child.
Importantly, had the Father shown up at the hearing there would have been no error to reverse the order entered because there was no transcript. The mother filed a motion for contempt for non payment of child support. The father admitted that he received notice of the hearing but did not attend. The Court entered a default judgment which contained the timesharing provision. The appeals court reversed, stating that the trial court could not enter a timesharing order on a default and that the court had to take testimony concerning the best interest of the child. The court also noted that, although the judge had to hold a hearing, listen to testimony and evidence and take into account the best interest of the child, the judge does not have to address why the judge believes that the ordered timesharing is in the best interest of the child.