GLORIA J. TOELLE, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL C. TOELLE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court held that the trial court had jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, but affirmed the trial court's decision to decline exercising that jurisdiction.
Appellant challenged the trial court's order declining jurisdiction over child custody under the UCCJA. The trial court had noted a prior Iowa action …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Exercise Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s order holding that it had no jurisdiction on the issue of child custody under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. § 61.-1302, Fla.Stat. (1977).
One of the purposes of this Act is to “[ajvoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other states in matters of child custody . . . .” Id. § 61.-1304(1). In effecting this purpose, the Act recognizes that a court with jurisdiction may consider various factors in determining whether to exercise its jurisdiction. Id. §§ 61.1316, 61.1318. After examining the findings of the trial court contained in the final judgment, we interpret the court’s judgment as declining to exercise jurisdiction because of the circumstances of this case. While we conclude the trial court did have jurisdiction, we cannot say that in declining to exercise it the court abused its discretion. The trial court noted in its order that appellee had filed a prior action in Iowa seeking child custody. The court dismissed appellant’s petition without prejudice to her instituting a new petition should Iowa waive jurisdiction.
While this appeal was pending, the Iowa court vacated its judgment dissolving the Toelles’ marriage, and its subsequent orders on child custody. In light of our conclusion that the trial court did have jurisdiction, these developments may have a significant effect on whether the trial court would now exercise its discretion to hear a petition from appellant on child custody.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court without prejudice to appellant to reinstitute proceedings in Florida under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.
GRIMES, C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.