STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. FLORIA NELL HICKS
v.
R. P. CAIN AND ALMA CAIN
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.
This habeas corpus proceeding sought to change the custody of a two-year-old child from his paternal grandparents to his mother. The lower court awarded custody to the grandparents, and the appellate court affirmed, finding no reversible error.
No, the lower court did not commit reversible error in awarding custody to the paternal grandparents.
“We have studied the record in light of the contention and it has not been made to appear that the Court below committed reversible error in the order challenged here.”
Establishes the court's finding that the lower court's decision was not erroneous.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe child lived with his paternal grandparents from birth until about age two. His father, who lived in the same home and was supported by the grandfa…
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 Child Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a habeas corpus proceeding instituted for the purpose of adjudicating the custody of James Ferrell Cain, a boy child about two years of age. Shortly after its birth and until about two years of age the child was kept in its paternal grandparents home in Washington County, Florida. The parents of the child lived in the same home, where the grandfather supplied his son, the father of the child, the sum of $100.00 per month upon which to live as he was at the time in poor health and died when the child was only a few months of age. The mother remained in this home for a while but went to Columbus, Georgia, to study beauty culture, and while there married the second time and gave birth to a second child. The court heard all the evidence and thereafter awarded the custody of the child to its paternal grandparents. We are requested on this appeal to reverse the order of the lower court and award the custody of the child to the mother. We have studied the record in light of the contention and it has not been made to appear that the Court below committed reversible error in the order challenged here. See Fielding v. Highsmith, 152 Fla. 837, 13 So. (2nd) 208.
Affirmed.
TERRELL, CHAPMAN, ADAMS, SEBRING, BARNS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
THOMAS, C. J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State ex rel. Charles B. Sparks v. Mrs. A. E. Reeves, 97 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1957)…on why he should not be permitted to have ■the benefit of his legal rights in the premises. Witt v. Burford, 84 Fla. 201, 93 So. 186; Busbee v. Weeks, 80 Fla. 323, 85 So. 653; Hart v. Howell, 154 Fla. 878, 19 So. 2d 317; State ex rel. Hicks v. Cain, 160 Fla. 680, 36 So. 2d 275. When this cause was last here it was the view of the majority of this Court, as expressed in its opinion, that the father should !by his conduct more clearly demonstrate his entitlement to enjoy the legal privilege of custody of his…
-
Hall v. Fla. State Dep't OF Pub. Welf. & Anne Curtwright, 226 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…reful consideration of the facts leave it in such custody as the welfare of the child at the time appears to require. This view has been adhered to in the following cases: Arnd’t v. Prose, Fla.1957, 94 So. 2d 818; State ex rel. Hicks v. Cain, 1948, 160 Fla. 680, 36 So. 2d 275; Fielding v. Highsmith, 1943, 152 Fla. 837, 13 So. 2d 208; State ex rel. Weaver v. Hamans, 1935, 118 Fla. 230, 159 So. 31; Maddox v. Barr, 1905, 49 Fla. 182, 38 So. 766. In the instant case, the trial judge saw fit to refuse to hear…
-
Arnd't v. Prose, 94 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1957)…been followed in other cases involving the claim of a parent or legal custodian to the custody of a child as against the claims of third persons. See State ex rel. Weaver v. Hamans, 1935, 118 Fla. 230, 159 So. 31; State ex rel. Hicks v. Cain, 1948, 160 Fla. 680, 36 So. 2d 275; Fielding v. Highsmith, 1943, 152 Fla. 837, 13 So. 2d 208. Accordingly, the order remanding the child to the custody of the appellee must be reversed under the authority of the above cited cases, and the cause is remanded for further…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- IDE v. City OF ST. Cloud, 152 Fla. 837 (Fla. 1943)