MAGGIERUTH (BORAM) JOHNSTON, APPELLANT,
v.
FORREST RAY BORAM, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Parental Visitation Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
This appeal was taken from a judgment awarding custody of two minor children, Alton Ray Boram and Latasha Boram, to their father. There was competent substantial evidence before the trial judge to support the award of custody. Absent a clear abuse of discretion, the award of the trial judge should be affirmed. Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1975); Brock v. Brock, 349 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
The trial court failed to provide visitation rights for the mother. The noncustodial parent should be granted reasonable visitation with a child unless there is proof of extreme circumstances, or the trial court finds that the visitation will adversely affect the welfare of the child. Chaffin v. Grigsby, 293 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). In this case either parent was a proper person to have custody. There was no evidence that visitation with the mother would adversely affect the welfare of the children. Therefore we affirm the award of custody but remand this matter to the trial court for entry of an order granting reasonable visitation rights for the mother. AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED.
ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Bernard v. KEE Mfg. Co., Inc., 409 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 1982)…pprove the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in this case, other than its deference to the legislature. Bernard v. Kee Manufacturing Co., Inc., 394 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). On the other hand Kinsler v. Rohm Tool Corp., 386 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), looked at the financial responsibility of the predecessor to determine the successor’s liability and thus expanded the corporate law rule. We disapprove that conflicting decision insofar as it is inconsistent with our opinion. I…
-
Phoenix v. State, 455 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1984)…bserve unlawful activity or gain access to evidence not available to a private citizen. United States v. Hernandez, 715 F. 2d 548 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 104 S.Ct. 1006, 79 L.Ed.2d 237 (1984); United States v. Ible; McAnnis v. State, 386 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State v. Shipman. The district court below followed, and we approve, this latter line of cases. In applying this standard, the district court found that [*1026] the record also reveals, and the trial court did not find to the co…
-
State v. Phoenix, 428 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…tree.” As a preliminary matter, we note that the actions of the sheriff and his officer prior to the search of the camper-truck stopped in St. Lucie amounted to an arrest of the occupants for purposes of the exclusionary rule. See McAnnis v. State, 386 So. 2d 1230, 1232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The question we must address is whether the sheriff and his officer had the power to lawfully arrest those occupants. As a general principle, public officers of a county or municipality have no official power to arrest an…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1975)
- Chaffin v. Grigsby, 293 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Hurd v. Hurd, 349 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Brock v. Brock, 349 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)