Like in Parramore, the GAL in this case filled a report and used false allegations misleading the court, with the objective of creating an impression on the court that the father was as bad as the mother and destroyed the credibility of the father with the court to protect thereby the neglectful actions of the mother toward the children.
V. “THE AGREED FINAL JUDGMENT” IS NOT ENFORCEABLE WHEN IT VIOLATES PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC POLICY.

A. The Agreed Final Judgment goes against public policy. Therefore, it illegal terms are void as a matter of law.
It is the law, no only on this state, but also in many others, that parents cannot bargain the right to child support, which belongs only to the children. This Court has previously held that “Child support …show more content…
It is also in the best interest of children to keep parents away from endless litigation regardless of the financial capabilities those parents have to keep harassing the other parent, which is precisely what have happened in this case.
C. This agreement contains Illegal and legal terms. Consequently, only legal terms can remain enforceable according to principles of contract. “In considering whether the entire agreement is void, we must look to general contract principles.” Serio v. Serio, 830 So. 2d 278, 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) See also Mott v. Mott, 800 So. 2d 331, 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that “[a] marital settlement agreement is governed by contract principles.)
In Serio, the court used Title & Trust Co. v. Parker, 468 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) as a guidance on how to proceed with the issue of whether or not an entire agreement is void when it contains legal and illegal terms and they held that “if a contract contains both legal and illegal terms, if ‘enforcement of the illegal terms can be refused without nullifying the contract's essential purpose,’ courts will ignore the illegal terms while giving effect to the valid portions of the agreement.” Serio, 830 So. 2d at