Filing # 20558774 Electronically Filed 11/13/2014 11:26:26 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No.: 2008-DR-4874

IN RE: The Matter of

ROYCE LYNDSAY REED,
Petitioner/Mother,
and
DWIGHT DAVID HOWARD, II,
Respondent/Father.
/

HOWARDS MOTION TO AMEND VERIFIED SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR

MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND OTHER RELIEF
Respondent/Father, Dwight David Howard, II (Howard), pursuant to Rule 1.190(a),
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 12.190, Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure
respectfully requests this Court enter its order granting Howard leave to file an Amended
Verified Supplemental Petition for Modification of Final Judgment and Other Relief, and states:
1.

On March 9, 2012, Howard filed his Verified Supplemental Petition for

Modification of Final Judgment and Other Relief (the "Petition").

2.

Howard now seeks leave to amend his Petition to include present factual

circumstances to support Howards allegations that a substantial change in circumstances exists,

which warrants a modification of the Final Judgment. A copy of the proposed Amended Verified
Supplemental Petition for Modification of Final Judgment and Other Relief (the Amended
Petition) is attached as Exhibit "1."

3.

Pursuant to Rule 1.190, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, leave of court to amend

pleadings should be given freely when justice so requires. Further, Floridas public policy favors
liberality in permitting amendments to the pleadings so resolution of disputes will be on their
merits. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Reeves, 92 So. 3d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).
4.

This Amended Petition is not being filed for purposes of delay but rather to

ensure that Father pleads all relevant and present facts to support his claim that there has been a
substantial change in circumstances since the Final Judgment was entered and the Petition was
filed. Notably, Father is seeking the same relief in his Amended Petition that he requested in his
initial Petition, and as a result, Mother will not be prejudiced if leave to amend the pleadings is
granted.
WHEREFORE, Respondent/Father, Dwight David Howard, II, respectfully requests this
Court exercise its discretion and enter its order granting Howard leave to file his Amended
Verified Supplemental Petition for Modification of Final Judgment and Other Relief in the form
attached as Exhibit 1.

[certificate of service to follow]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 14, 2014, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing was furnished via email to Jane E. Carey, Attorney-at-Law, Jane E. Carey, P.A.
(jane.e.carey@gmail.com,

hhmorall@janeecarey.com,

kseraaj.pl@gmail.com,

kseraaj@janeecarey.com) Ashford-Gainer Building, 905 W. Colonial Drive, Orlando, FL 32804.

/s/ Mayanne Downs_____________________

Mayanne Downs
Florida Bar No. 754900
Primary E-Mail:
mayanne.downs@gray-robinson.com
Secondary E-Mail:
april.stringer@gray-robinson.com
Nicole Park
Florida Bar No. 15874
Primary E-Mail:
nicole.park@gray-robinson.com
Secondary E-Mail:
alisha.cyrus@gray-robinson.com
GrayRobinson, P.A.
P.O. Box 3068
Orlando, FL 32802-3068
Telephone: 407-843-8880
Facsimile: 407-244-5690
and
C. Anthony Mulrain
Primary E-Mail:
amulrain@gordonrees.com
Secondary E-Mail:
dhasfal@gordonrees.com
GORDON & REES LLP
3455 Peachtree Road, Suite 1500
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 869-9054
Facsimile: (678) 389-8457
Attorneys for Respondent/Howard
3

Exhibit 1
Amended Verified Supplemental Petition for Modification of Final Judgment and Other Relief
[see attached]

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No.: 2008-DR-4874

IN RE: The Matter of

ROYCE LYNDSAY REED,
Petitioner/Mother,
and
DWIGHT DAVID HOWARD, II,
Respondent/Father.
/
HOWARDS AMENDED VERIFIED SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION
FOR MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND OTHER RELIEF
Respondent/Father, Dwight David Howard, II (Howard), pursuant to Sections 61.13(3)
and 61.13(4)(c)(6), Florida Statutes, respectfully requests that this Court award Howard majority
timesharing with the parties minor child, B.H., born XX/XX/2007 (B.H.), and states:
I. SUMMARY
It is in the best interests of B.H. that this Court modify the Final Judgment by awarding
Howard majority timesharing. Petitioner/Mother, Royce Lyndsay Reed (Reed) refuses to
comply with the Final Judgment. Her violations include preventing Howard from exercising his
timesharing with B.H., refusing to co-parent with Howard, using B.H. to extort an economic and
litigation advantage, and refusing to involve him in medical decisions affecting B.H. Howard
has attempted to resolve these violations without Court involvement, but Reed has ignored
Howards attempts and this Courts numerous enforcement and contempt orders. Accordingly,

EXHIBIT 1

given these substantial changes in circumstances, a modification of the Final Judgment is

required.
II. INTRODUCTION
This Amended Petition seeks to provide B.H. an environment where he can mature, and
develop loving relationships with both parents without psychotropic medications. Since this
Court entered the Final Judgment, Reed has consistently disregarded this Courts authority and
the parties agreements to the detriment of B.H. and his relationship with his father. She refuses
to allow Howard to see B.H. during his timesharing, and unilaterally over-medicates B.H.
without regard for his physical, and emotional well-being. Reed has exhibited a clear agenda
calculated to limit Howards contact with B.H., and to destroy Howards relationship with B.H.
Nearly every contact that Howard has with B.H. requires lawyer involvement to force Reed to
comply with her contractual and legal duties.
Regrettably, Reeds goal is to force Howard to pay ever-increasing support obligations
that she rarely spends on B.H.s needs. Reed exploits B.H. as a pawn in her scheme to extract an
economic and litigation advantage. When Reed fails to get her way, she resorts to whatever
means are necessary to try to gain leverage over Howard.1
Since the filing of Howards initial petition, Reed and her attorney made outlandish
accusations concerning Howard to this Court, the Department of Children and Families (DCF),
the media, and most unfortunately to B.H. Reeds baseless DCF complaint is another example of
Reeds unethical attempts to obtain a litigation advantage. As part of her fabrication, Reed
submitted pictures that she claimed showed the results of Howards abuse. Yet, those pictures
1

Howard respectfully requests that this Court take judicial notice of the civil action filed by Howard in the Business
Court of this judicial circuit, Howard v. Reed, No. 2009-CA-032603-O (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. 2009) (the Defamation
Action). In that case, the Court entered a final judgment in favor of Howard and against Reed stemming from,
among other things, Reeds use of B.H. in her disparagement campaign against Howard, and her violations of the
non-disparagement provisions in the parties Parenting Agreement.

EXHIBIT 1

actually depict unrelated injuries to B.H., injuries suffered by a child other than B.H., or a
combination of both. DCF closed its file after investigating these false allegations.
In reality, Howard appropriately disciplines B.H. with restraint to constructively modify
B.H.s behavior. Disciplining a child is never an easy or welcomed task for a loving parent.
However, Howard is committed to exhausting conventional methods before abandoning B.H. to
mind-altering chemicals. To that end, he has disciplined his son in an appropriate manner when
necessary. Despite Reeds allegations to the contrary, Howard never caused marks, bruises, welts
or injuries requiring medical treatment. Howard has always shown appropriate restraint when
reprimanding B.H., is always mindful that B.H. is a small boy, and always takes measures to
ensure that the level of discipline is appropriate and lawful.
Reed has further attempted to alienate B.H. from Howard by degrading Howards fatherson relationship with a revolving door of father figures, which she callously portrays as part of a
family unit to B.H. and the public. In addition to encouraging B.H. to develop relationships with
these men, Reed exposes or fails to prevent B.H. from being exposed to sexual acts between her
and her numerous companions. As a result, B.H. is exhibiting sexually inappropriate conduct for
a child his age. Howard raised these issues with Reed out of concern for B.H.s well-being, but
Reed refuses to discuss this matter or seek professional help.
Rather than focusing on the cause of B.H.s behavioral issues, Reed prefers a chemical
babysitter to conventional parenting methods and psychological counseling that have proven to
be effective for B.H. Instead of taking the time to parent their seven-year-old, she forces B.H. to
take high doses of anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, and psychotropic medications over Howards
repeated objections. These medications are inappropriate and dangerous for young children,
especially when effective non-pharmaceutical methods of behavioral modification are available.

EXHIBIT 1

Overmedicating B.H. simply masks the problems that the parents could handle in a healthy and
permanent manner through cooperative counseling and co-parenting. Howard simply desires to
work with Reed to find medical experts, attend counseling, or take any other actions necessary to
help B.H. address these issues before resorting to psychotropic drugs.
Howard is committed to providing whatever resources are necessary to give B.H. a
healthy and to the greatest extent possible chemical-free childhood in which B.H. is the
priority. Unfortunately, despite multiple enforcement orders, contempt orders, and subsequent
agreements, Reed refuses to accommodate B.H.s special needs and co-parent B.H. to serve his
best interests. Instead, she keeps B.H. subdued with mind-altering chemicals, and discourages a
close relationship between B.H. and his father. Accordingly, these substantial changes in
circumstances require this Court to modify the Final Judgment.
III. MODIFICATION OF TIMESHARING AND PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
A. MODIFICATION
1.

This is a petition to modify the Final Judgment (the Amended Petition). Based

on a substantial change in circumstances and the best interests of B.H., Howard seeks an Order
modifying the Final Judgment and permanently awarding him majority timesharing with B.H.
2.

Reed and B.H. have been residents of Florida for more than six (6) months prior

to the filing of this Amended Petition.

3.

The Final Judgment was entered in Orange County, Florida.

4.

This Court retained jurisdiction to enforce and modify the Final Judgment.

5.

On September 22, 2008, this Court entered a Final Judgment of Paternity. A true

and correct copy of the Final Judgment is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

EXHIBIT 1

6.

The Final Judgment incorporated the parties Settlement and Parenting

Agreement dated July 16, 2008 (the Parenting Agreement) as well as the parties
Memorandum of Understanding dated September 4, 2008. True and correct copies of the
Parenting Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding are attached hereto as Exhibits
B and C, respectively, and the Amendment to Settlement and Parenting Agreement is
attached hereto as Exhibit D.
7.

Over the last several years, Howard continuously attempted to co-parent with

Reed and abide by the Parenting Agreement. Unfortunately, Reed insisted on keeping B.H. from
his father, undermined their relationship whenever possible, and leveraged B.H. for her own
economic gain.
Reed Breached the Parenting Agreement by Violating B.H.s Privacy.
8.

The parties modified the Parenting Agreement to allow them to post pictures of

B.H. on their private webpages or blog, which are only accessible to authorized persons.
9.

However, Reed violated Sections 10 and 14(a) of the Parenting Agreement by

posting photographs of B.H. on social media websites that are accessible to the public. See Ex.
B, Parenting Agreement, 10 & 14(A).
10.

Now, anyone who searches for Reeds social media pages can see pictures of B.H.

Reed Breached the Parenting Agreement by Denying B.H. Timesharing with Howard.
11.

From the date of the Final Judgment through December 2009, while the parties

were residing in the same county, Reed consistently denied Howard his weekend and Wednesday
overnight timesharing. Reed unilaterally dictated the terms and logistics of any timesharing that
she actually allowed Howard to exercise.
12.

Additionally, in October of 2009, Reed began using B.H. as a pawn in a Twitter

defamation campaign against Howard. Reed falsely alleged that Howard failed to see B.H. for
5

EXHIBIT 1

months at a time, that Howard hid from B.H. to avoid spending time with him, and that B.H. did
not even know Howard.
13.

There was no reasonable basis for Reed to deny Howard his timesharing with

B.H. during this period of time. Reed also refused to allow Howard any make-up timesharing for
the periods she unilaterally withheld.
Although Howard Sought Court Intervention to
Cure these Breaches, Reed Ignored this Courts Orders.
14.

After attempting to resolve these breaches with Reed, Howard was forced to seek

court intervention. While Howard was able to obtain relief from this Court, Reed disregarded the
Court orders and insisted on keeping B.H. from his father. Unfortunately, Reed continued to
engage in conduct aimed at destroying the relationship between B.H. and Howard.
15.

Reeds flagrant disregard for the orders of this Court has caused, and is continuing

to cause, significant hurdles to Howards ability to parent B.H.

The December 2009 and November 2010 Motions for Enforcement
16.

On December 8, 2009, Howard filed his Motion for Contempt, Enforcement,

Clarification and Attorneys Fees (the December 2009 Motion for Enforcement) and the
Defamation Action against Reed.
17.

Reed ignored the December 2009 Motion for Enforcement. Subsequently, Reeds

interference with Howards parenting rights became progressively worse. As a result, Howard
was forced to file the following motions:
a. Howards Amended First Motion for Contempt dated February 10, 2010;
b. Howards Motion to Compel Compliance with Parenting Agreement and
Florida Law dated May 3, 2010;

EXHIBIT 1

c. Howards Motion to Appoint Special Master or Other Court-Designated

Individual dated September 8, 2010;
d. Howards Motion to Compel Reeds Compliance with Parenting Agreement
dated October 12, 2010; and
e. Howards Amended Motion to Compel Reeds Compliance with Parenting
Agreement and Florida Law and to Award Make-Up Timesharing dated
November 12, 2010 (the November 2010 Motion for Enforcement).
18.

Reed continued to use B.H. as a pawn in her personal vendetta against Howard to

gain an economic and a litigation advantage. For example, Reed cancelled Howards visitation
with B.H. for April 23-25, 2010, and limited B.H.s access to Howard thereafter for no other
reason than to extort more money from Howard.
19.

Reed consistently makes it a challenge for Howard to see B.H. Reed refused to

list Howard or his agents as authorized persons to pick up B.H. from daycare requiring hours of
delay and attorney correspondence just so Howard could see his son for his agreed upon
timesharing. She even unilaterally changed child care centers without Howards consent.
20.

On one occasion, Howard and Reed agreed that Howard could pick up B.H. from

daycare. Yet, when Howard picked up B.H., Reed called the police and claimed Howard
kidnapped B.H. Again attorney involvement was necessary and the incident was cleared up, but
Reed reported the kidnapping to the media falsely claiming that B.H. was traumatized by
unlawful actions of Howard.
21.

Reed continued her efforts to alienate Howard from B.H. She attempted to

substitute her boyfriend as a father figure to B.H., and depicted her boyfriend as B.H.s father
figure in public Internet posts and pictures.

EXHIBIT 1

22.

Also during this time, Reed did not take steps to care for B.H.s mental and

physical well-being. To address B.H.s health issues, she over-medicates B.H. over Howards
objections. Most tragically, B.H. witnessed Reed engage in sexual acts causing him to exhibit
unhealthy sexual behavior.
Howard Still Attempted to Resolve These Issues Directly with Reed.
23.

Despite Reeds actions, Howard continued to comply with the terms of the Final

Judgment, and did not interfere with B.H.s relationship with Reed. In fact, Howard attempted to
comply with Reeds arbitrary restrictions, so that he could exercise his timesharing.
24.

Howards efforts were in vain. Reed only allowed Howard limited access to B.H.,

and contrived a new list of excuses preventing Howard from exercising his timesharing.
The November 2010 Enforcement Order
Howards Efforts Failed, So He Sought Relief From This Court.
25.

On November 18, 2010, this Court issued an Order on the November 2010

Motion for Enforcement (the November 2010 Enforcement Order). A true and accurate copy
of the November 2010 Enforcement Order is attached as Exhibit E.
26.

In short, the November 2010 Enforcement Order disposed of Reeds list of

arbitrary restrictions. It also provided that Howard was entitled to scheduled timesharing, to
additional timesharing with notice, and to have B.H. picked up by Howards designees.
The February 2011 Motion for Enforcement
Reed Continues to Ignore This Courts Orders.
27.

Unfortunately, Reed continued to disregard Howards joint parenting rights and

this Courts orders. On December 29, 2010, Reed unilaterally declared that she would not allow
any timesharing until a parenting coordinator was retained.
28.

For the entirety of 2011, Reed provided Howard access to B.H. that was sporadic

at best. For months at a time, Reed refused to allow Howard to see his son.
8

EXHIBIT 1

29.

Howard filed another motion seeking compliance with the Final Judgment his

Motion for Contempt dated February 17, 2011 (the February 2011 Motion for Enforcement),
which she also ignored.
30.

During this time, Reed periodically cut off communications with Howard, and

refused to respond when Howard attempted to determine B.Hs whereabouts.

31.

Reed also continued to post pictures and videos of B.H. on the Internet for public

viewing, and unilaterally removed B.H. from the daycare facility agreed to by the parties.
The February 2012 Timesharing Order
The Court Provides Relief, Including Make-up Timesharing.
32.

On February 24, 2012, this Court entered an Interim Order on Timesharing and

Access (the February 2012 Timesharing Order). The order provided a detailed schedule of
specific dates for timesharing for the months of March and April 2012, and further provided that
Howard was entitled to make-up timesharing. A true and accurate copy of the February 2012
Timesharing Order is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
Reed Continued to Keep B.H. From Howard.
33.

The only time that Howard has ever received regular and consistent timesharing

with B.H. was during the two (2) months that followed the February 2012 Timesharing Order.
Howard should not have to resort to four months of extensive legal proceedings just to develop
and maintain a positive and meaningful relationship with B.H. Indeed, Howard has made
extraordinary attempts to accommodate Reeds arbitrary and vindictive demands to see his son.
34.

Reeds campaign to destroy Howards relationship with B.H. necessitated the

filing of Howards initial Verified Supplemental Petition for Modification of Final Judgment and
Other Relief on March 12, 2012.

EXHIBIT 1

35.

On or about August 20, 2012, Howard relocated to Los Angeles, California when

he was traded from the Orlando Magic to the Los Angeles Lakers. Howards change in location
had no effect on his desire to resolve the issues raised in this litigation.
36.

Undersigned counsel was finally able to convince Reed and her attorney to attend

a settlement conference in Los Angeles, California to address the compliance issues and
renegotiate a mutually agreeable parenting plan. Howard paid $10,000 for Reed and her attorney
to attend. Reed chose not to attend, but her attorney negotiated and entered into a temporary
timesharing settlement agreement (December 2012 Temporary Agreement). This agreement
provided, among other things, a timesharing schedule based on Howards relocation.
37.

Although Reeds attorney represented she had the authority to enter into an

agreement at the settlement conference, Reed attempted to avoid the December 2012 Temporary
Agreement. She claimed that her attorney was not authorized to enter into the agreement even
after accepting the $10,000 from Howard to facilitate the conference. Howard spent an additional
$30,000 in attorney fees holding Reed to her agreement, which was affirmed by this Court and
the Fifth District Court of Appeal. Still, Reed systematically refuses to comply with her
obligations and the agreement that her and her attorney reached.
B. SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES
38.

These substantial changes in circumstances, not anticipated at the time of the

Final Judgment or Howards initial Petition for Modification, are material, involuntary and
permanent in nature. These changes require a modification of the Final Judgment to provide
Howard with majority timesharing and reasonable timesharing for Reed.

10

EXHIBIT 1

39.

Since the entry of the Final Judgment and the initial Petition for Modification,

Reed has exhibited a clear agenda aimed at destroying Howards relationship with B.H. by
obstructing Howards efforts to exercise timesharing with B.H.
40.

Since entry of the Final Judgment and the initial Petition for Modification, Reed

has consistently refused to communicate with Howard regarding B.H.s whereabouts. She has
also refused to allow Howard to participate in important decisions affecting B.H.s welfare,
including decisions affecting his education and psychological health.
41.

Since the entry of the Final Judgment and the initial Petition for Modification,

Reed has used B.H. as a pawn in her personal vendetta against Howard without regard to how
her actions affect B.H.s emotional well-being. She uses B.H. to gain a litigation advantage over
and to extort money from Howard.
42.

Since the entry of the Final Judgment and the initial Petition for Modification, and

despite her personal assurances and those of her attorney, Reed has refused to foster a
meaningful relationship between Howard and B.H. Reed has taken considerable steps to prevent
Howard from exercising his timesharing with B.H. She has imposed unreasonable restrictions on
Howard and systematically restricts his access to B.H.
43.

Since the entry of the Final Judgment and the initial Petition for Modification,

Reed attempted to alienate Howard from B.H. by establishing father-son relationships with other
males. Not only do these actions violate the Parenting Agreement, these actions are harmful to
B.H. Substituting other men for B.H.s father is not in B.H.s best interests. B.H.s best interests
are served when Howard is permitted to be his father. The fact that Howard must ask the Court
for this relief exemplifies Reeds conduct in this regard.

11

EXHIBIT 1

44.

Since the entry of the Final Judgment and the initial Petition for Modification, and

in violation of the Parenting Agreement, Reed unilaterally made medical decisions involving
B.H. She employs excessive amounts of medication, including anti-depressants, anti-anxiety and
anti-psychotropic medications over Howards objection. B.H.s interest are not served by
multiple mood-altering medications to placate Reeds refusal to spend her time to parent him.
Like many hyper-active children, B.H. needs committed supervision and hours of active exercise
and playtime. Reed is unwilling or unable to provide B.H. with her time. Howard is prepared and
committed to exhaust every conventional method of behavior modification before abandoning
B.H. to a chemically induced, albeit convenient, calmness.
45.

Since the entry of the Final Judgment and the initial Petition for Modification,

Reed has ignored the concepts of shared parenting and shared parental responsibility. She has
further demonstrated a complete indifference to this Courts authority.
46.

Since the entry of the Final Judgment and the initial Petition for Modification,

Reed has permitted B.H. to observe conduct of a sexual nature, which B.H. has attempted to
copy. These are serious issues that the parents must address in order to properly raise B.H.
Howard has attempted to communicate with Reed to resolve these serious issues, but Reed
refuses to confer with Howard. These issues remain unresolved, which is detrimental to B.H.s
mental and social development, and certainly not in B.H.s best interests.
47.

Howard has made significant efforts to jointly parent and cooperate with Reed.

Unfortunately, it is evident that joint parenting is not feasible in this matter, unless B.H. is with
Howard the majority of the time.

12

EXHIBIT 1

C. BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILD

48.

Based on these substantial changes in circumstances, this Courts prior orders,

and Florida law, it is in the best interest of B.H. that majority timesharing be granted to Howard.
Thus, it is in the best interests of B.H. to modify the Final Judgment.
49.

With Howard, B.H. will have a safe, healthy, loving and stable home. Most

importantly, he will have the opportunity to grow up with the love, support and active
involvement of both parents. Howard is a devoted and dedicated father that loves his son, and
B.H. thrives when he is with his father. Howard understands the importance of having Reed
actively involved in B.H.s life too. For this reason, Howard has no intention of denying Reed
any timesharing that she is entitled to receive once majority timesharing is granted to Howard.
50.

Regrettably, Reed has demonstrated an unwillingness to facilitate a close and

continuing parent-child relationship with Howard. On the other hand, Howard wants nothing
more than a positive and meaningful relationship with B.H., without infringing on Reeds
parenting rights. Thus, a meaningful relationship for B.H. with both Reed and Howard will only
occur if this Court grants a majority timesharing to Howard on a permanent basis.
51.

Reed has a penchant for openly and repeatedly disregarding the Final Judgment

and this Courts orders. Instead, she fails to permit shared parenting, and undermines Howards
relationship with B.H.
52.

She has also demonstrated an unwillingness to act upon the needs of B.H.,

including refusing to consult and confer with Howard regarding any aspect of shared parenting.
These failures have affected B.Hs emotional and physical well-being, which have resulted in
B.H. exhibiting age-inappropriate actions. Accordingly, it is in B.H.s best interests for Howard
to have majority timesharing.

13

EXHIBIT 1

D. ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS

53.

Howard has employed the law firms of Gordon & Rees, LLP and GrayRobinson,

P.A. to represent him in this action and has agreed to pay his attorneys their reasonable fees,
costs, and suit money for this representation.
54.

Pursuant to 10 of the Parenting Agreement and Section 61.13(4)(c)(2), Florida

Statutes, Howard is entitled to his attorneys fees and costs because Reed has violated the Final
Judgment, the Parenting Agreement, and the November 2010 Enforcement Order.
55.

Additionally, Howard has spent tens of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees to

see B.H. and to compel Reed to comply with her legal obligations. Reed has driven up costs of
this litigation by engaging in bad faith and vexatious litigation practices.
E. MILITARY SERVICE AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF
56.

Both parties are over the age of eighteen (18) years old and neither is, nor has

been within the period of thirty (30) days immediately prior to the filing of this Amended
Petition, a member of the armed forces of the United States.
WHEREFORE, Howard respectfully requests the Court grant the following relief:
a.

Modify the Final Judgment such that Howard receives majority timesharing with
B.H. on a permanent basis;

b.

Order a timesharing schedule that allows Reed reasonable time with B.H., subject
to adjustments for makeup timesharing;

c.

Award Howard his attorneys fees and costs for Reeds continued breaches of the
Final Judgment and multiple court orders and for her continued vexatious acts
since the initiation of these proceedings; and

d.

Provide such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

14

EXHIBIT 1

Dated:

, 2014.

Howard D. Howard II
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared HOWARD D. HOWARD
II, who is either personally known to me or who produced a drivers license as identification,
who after being duly sworn, took an oath, and acknowledged that he signed the above instrument
and that the statements contained therein are true and correct, this ____ day of
___________________, 2014.
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA
Signature:
Printed:
Commission No.:
My Commission Expires:

15

EXHIBIT 1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November ___, 2014, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing was furnished via email and U.S. Mail to Jane E. Carey, Attorney-at-Law, Jane E.
Carey, P.A. (jane.e.carey@gmail.com, hhmorall@janeecarey.com, kseraaj.pl@gmail.com,
kseraaj@janeecarey.com) Ashford-Gainer Building, 905 W. Colonial Drive, Orlando, FL 32804.

/s/ Mayanne Downs_____________________

Mayanne Downs
Florida Bar No. 754900
Primary E-Mail:
mayanne.downs@gray-robinson.com
Secondary E-Mail:
april.stringer@gray-robinson.com
Nicole Park
Florida Bar No. 15874
Primary E-Mail:
nicole.park@gray-robinson.com
Secondary E-Mail:
alisha.cyrus@gray-robinson.com
GrayRobinson, P.A.
P.O. Box 3068
Orlando, FL 32802-3068
Telephone: 407-843-8880
Facsimile: 407-244-5690
and
C. Anthony Mulrain
Primary E-Mail:
amulrain@gordonrees.com
Secondary E-Mail:
dhasfal@gordonrees.com
GORDON & REES LLP
3455 Peachtree Road, Suite 1500
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 869-9054
Facsimile: (678) 389-8457
Attorneys for Respondent/Howard
16

EXHIBIT 1