Anthony Meehan Genova, Esq., B.C.S.
Can a parent defy a court order, flee the jurisdiction with a child, and simultaneously demand that an appellate court rule in their favor? The legal system answers with a firm no. Under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, courts exercise their inherent authority to dismiss appeals filed by individuals who evade law enforcement and refuse to submit to judicial decrees. Born in criminal law, this equitable doctrine plays a critical role in high-conflict family law disputes. For parents in Lakeland and throughout Central Florida, understanding this doctrine matters when a custody order is ignored or a child is taken out of reach.
This blog article explores the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, its application in custody matters, and its recent application in Perez Acosta v. Martinez-Borges, No. 3D25-0582, 2026 WL 3071076 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 14, 2026). Throughout, we apply the compositional rules of William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White’s The Elements of Style and the citation standards of The Bluebook.
The fugitive disentitlement doctrine arises from the inherent power of courts to enforce judgments, preserve judicial dignity, and manage court proceedings efficiently. The United States Supreme Court first established the doctrine in Smith v. United States, 94 U.S. 97 (1876), where an at-large criminal defendant sought appellate review while evading custody. The Smith Court reasoned that a fugitive is unlikely to submit to an adverse judgment, turning appellate review into a meaningless academic exercise.
Modern jurisprudence refined the doctrine through two landmark Supreme Court decisions:
As summarized in United States v. Bardakova, 145 F.4th 231, 240 (2d Cir. 2025) (quoting United States v. Bescond, 24 F.4th 759, 773–74 (2d Cir. 2021)), disentitlement serves four primary objectives: (1) assuring judgment enforceability; (2) penalizing process flouting; (3) discouraging flight and promoting court efficiency; and (4) avoiding prejudice to the opposing party.
In civil proceedings, courts evaluate these objectives using a three-prong test: (1) the litigant is a fugitive; (2) the status connects directly to the court action; and (3) dismissal is necessary to effectuate underlying concerns; see Ener v. Martin, 987 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11th Cir. 2021) (citing Magluta v. Samples, 162 F.3d 662, 664 (11th Cir. 1998)).
Applying disentitlement in domestic relations requires careful restraint. Parents possess a fundamental liberty interest in child custody; see Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982). Additionally, the child’s best interests serve as the “polestar consideration” in timesharing disputes; see Logreira v. Logreira, 373 So. 3d 923, 926 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).
Because child custody involves constitutional protections, family courts apply the doctrine sparingly. However, when a parent conceals a child, the balance shifts. Courts enforce disentitlement forcefully when a fleeing parent hides a child, making enforcement of future court orders improbable; see Matsumoto v. Matsumoto, 171 N.J. 110, 792 A.2d 1222, 1236 (2002); Pesin v. Rodriguez, 244 F.3d 1250, 1253 (11th Cir. 2001). As noted in Searle v. Juvenile Court for Williamson County, 188 S.W.3d 547, 550 (Tenn. 2006), the doctrine prevents a parent from seeking court aid while “thumbing his nose” at judicial authority.
Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal applied these principles in Perez Acosta v. Martinez-Borges, No. 3D25-0582, 2026 WL 3071076 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 14, 2026). The case involved a high-conflict custody dispute between Hector Perez Acosta (father) and Idaymi Martinez-Borges (mother) regarding their ten-year-old son.
On March 7, 2025, Judge Ivonne Cuesta of the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court entered a thirteen-page order granting the mother sole parental responsibility and curtailing the father’s timesharing. The father appealed. Pending appeal, the trial court permitted the father to travel to the Dominican Republic with the child in July 2026.
Instead of returning, the father notified the mother via a court app that he would not return the child. The trial court issued an emergency pick-up order on July 27, 2026. At a subsequent hearing, the father’s partner testified that the father had fled the Dominican Republic with the child to an unknown location. Finding an imminent threat of harm, the trial court suspended timesharing and issued an arrest warrant. The father remained a fugitive.
The mother moved to dismiss the appeal under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Miller granted the motion and dismissed the appeal. The court held that the father satisfied all three prongs of disentitlement:
Conclusion
The fugitive disentitlement doctrine protects judicial integrity. In family law, where child safety is paramount, courts will not allow absconding parents to weaponize appellate procedures. As Perez Acosta demonstrates, compliance with court orders is the indispensable prerequisite for seeking judicial relief.
Has the other parent ignored a custody order or taken your child out of reach? Our child custody attorneys in Lakeland can move quickly to enforce your timesharing rights and protect your child.
Anthony Meehan Genova, Esq., B.C.S., is a legal professional specializing in family law, particularly known for his extensive experience in trial and his commitment to community service. He has physical offices in Lakeland and Orlando as well as a remote office in Weston, Florida. He graduated from the University of Miami Law School in 1986 and won his first murder trial in 1987.
Mr. Genova is Board Certified in Marital & Family Law. This certification, widely regarded as the “gold standard” for Florida lawyers, signifies Florida’s official, independent determination of a lawyer’s expertise to practice in a specialty field of law. The Board Certification program, overseen by The Florida Supreme Court and administered by The Florida Bar, rigorously evaluates all board-certified lawyers for credibility, expertise, professionalism, and ethics.
To achieve this esteemed certification, Mr. Genova demonstrated a dedication to achieving a heightened level of excellence through character, professionalism, ethics, and credibility. The rigorous process requires at least five years of practice, substantial involvement in the chosen area, successful passing of a comprehensive examination, and a rigorous peer-review process. Additionally, board-certified lawyers must satisfy continuing legal education requirements that are more robust than those for general licensure. This certification is valid for five years and requires continued practice and attendance of Florida Bar-approved continuing legal education courses for recertification. As of 2023, only 260 lawyers in Florida (less than 1% of the 114,000 eligible Florida Bar members) have earned board certification in Marital and Family Law. Clients retaining a board-certified lawyer like Mr. Genova gain access to specialized expertise, professionalism & ethics, credibility, and a heightened dedication to excellence, offering assurance of a heightened level of proficiency in Marital & Family Law.
In addition to his board certification, Mr. Genova has been a Supreme Court Certified Marital & Family Law Mediator since 2019.
Mr. Genova is also trained in Collaborative family law since 2017.
He has been a dedicated member of the Executive Council of the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar since 2016. His significant involvement within this section includes various leadership and committee roles, demonstrating a deep engagement with the evolution and practice of family law. Mr. Genova is currently the 2025-26 Chairman of the Domestic Violence Committee and has a “Stand Your Ground” article published in the September/October 2026 Florida Bar Journal.
Anthony Genova is Qualified to be Lead Counsel in Defense of Individuals Facing the Death Penalty.
Mr. Genova is a partner with Anthony J. Caggiano, Esq., B.C.S. who is Board Certified in Civil Trial and specializes in personal injury and medical malpractice. Mr. Caggiano’s office is in downtown Orlando.