JAMES I. TILDEN, APPELLANT,
v.
DIANE TILDEN LOCKE, 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.
A Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's order that temporarily allowed a mother to retain custody of a child, holding that the trial court improperly modified a valid New York custody decree without proper notice, pleadings, or factual basis. The court emphasized Florida's obligation to recognize and enforce out-of-state custody decrees.
Yes. The trial court erred by requiring the child to be returned to the mother at the conclusion of visitation, which effectively modified the father's custody rights under the New York decree without proper legal procedures. Florida courts are required to recognize and enforce out-of-state custody decrees.
[1] A Florida court may temporarily defer enforcement of a sister state's custody decree in an emergency situation.
[2] Emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJA does not grant a Florida court subject matter jurisdiction to modify a sister state's decree.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We believe the trial court erred when it required the child to be returned to the mother at the conclusion of his visit with the father, contrary to the New York order. The effect of the trial court's order was to modify custody from the father to the mother without appropriate notice, pleadings, or factual predicate.”
Establishes that the trial court's order improperly modified the existing custody decree without required legal procedures.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter contested custody proceedings in New York, the father was awarded custody of his seven-year-old son, Jimmy. The mother fled Florida with the chi…
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 Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
The father seeks review of an order temporarily allowing the mother to retain custody of the minor child of the parties. The matter was heard on the father’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, and the trial judge entered an order stating in part:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the minor, Jimmy Tilden shall visit the father, James Tilden and wife until 5 P.M. Sunday, December 9, 1979, at which time the child shall be returned to the mother. This order has been ¿greed to by all parties.
A further hearing on custody shall take place at a future date before this court.
The father contends that the trial judge erred in failing to enforce the New York decree and that the order permitting visitation by the father actually modified custody from the father to the mother without pleadings or notice. We agree and reverse.1
After contested custody proceedings in New York, the father was awarded custody of Jimmy, age seven. The mother then ran off with'the child. The Supreme Court of New York then directed the mother to surrender the child to the custody of the father. The mother was found in Florida where the father filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court entered the order in contention and indicated that it would conduct a further hearing on the question of custody, but would not be inclined to change custody from the father to the mother without a showing of circumstances requiring such a change. We believe the trial court erred when it required the child to be returned to the mother at the conclusion of his visit with the father, contrary to the New York order. The effect of the trial court’s order was to modify custody from the father to the mother without appropriate notice, pleadings, or factual predicate. Barreiro v. Barreiro, 377 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Matthews v. Matthews, 376 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Florida courts are required to recognize and enforce out-of-state custody decrees. Trujillo v. Trujillo, 378 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, § 61.1328, Fla.Stat. (1977).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
. The mother has not responded to the father’s appellate proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Costantino v. Costantino, 386 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…by changing custody of the parties’ two boys from the mother to the father. We entirely agree with and adopt the reasoning and analysis of the Hegler decision, the facts of which are virtually on all fours with this one.1 See also, Tilden v. Locke, 383 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Unlike Hegler, however, we see no reason for remanding the cause for a determination of whether the trial court had jurisdiction under Section 61.1308(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1977). The testimony already taken at the “final hear…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Jimmie v. Utreva, 386 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…SCHWARTZ, Judge. In Tilden v. Locke, 383 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), we reversed a December 7,1979 order of the trial court which required the appellant-father to return the parties’ child to the appellee-mother after a short “visitation” which was to end on December 9. This appeal challenges a De…
-
Sommer v. Sommer, 508 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…); McCormick v. Norman, 453 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Greene v. Greene, 432 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1983); see Matter of Adoption of K.C.P., 432 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Brown v. Tan, 395 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981); Tilden v. Locke, 383 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980); Dragoo v. Dragoo, 99 Wisc.2d 42, 298 N.W. 2d 231 (Wisc.App.1980); Detko/Roberts v. Stikelether, 370 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). . Gerber v. Gerber, 468 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA. 1985); Nelson v. Nelson, 433 So. 2d 1015 (Fl…
Authorities Cited
- Barreiro v. Barreiro, 377 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Trujillo v. Trujillo, 378 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Weaver v. Masanotti, 376 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)