LINDA L. DRAPER, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN DAVID DRAPER, 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.
Linda Draper appealed a final dissolution of marriage decree that awarded her custody of the four minor children but imposed a restriction prohibiting Steven Stapleton from visiting the family home or children unless she married him. The appellate court struck down the restriction as an abuse of discretion because it was unsupported by evidence and overbroad, while affirming the custody award and other aspects of the decree.
The trial court abused its discretion by imposing the Stapleton restriction without a finding that he adversely affected the children's welfare or competent, substantial evidence to support such a restriction. The restriction was improper both because it lacked evidentiary support and because it was overbroad in prohibiting visits when children were not present. The custody award to Mrs. Draper and all other aspects of the decree were affirmed.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by imposing conditions on a custodial parent's conduct or associations that are not supported by competent, substantial evidence in th…
[2] A trial court may not impose restrictions on a custodial parent's associations that are overbroad and extend to situations where the children are not present.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The court ordered this restriction in the absence of a finding that Mr. Stapleton adversely affected the children's welfare, and in the absence of any competent, substantial evidence in the record that would have supported such a finding.”
Establishes the core reason the restriction was improper—lack of evidentiary support for any adverse effect on the children
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLinda and John David Draper divorced and disputed custody of their four minor children. At trial, their fifteen-year-old son testified about his mothe…
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 Continuing Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Linda Draper appeals from a final dissolution of marriage. She raises four issues on appeal. Only one of these issues has merit and requires discussion.
The pleadings in the lower court raised custody of the parties’ four minor children as an issue to be determined by the trial court. Both parties sought to be awarded custody. The oldest of the parties’ children, their fifteen year old son, testified concerning Mrs. Draper’s relationship with a Steven Stapleton. He also gave his opinion that his best interest would be served by being in the custody of Mrs. Draper. After cross-examination of the son by Mr. Draper’s attorney, Mr. Draper, without any qualifications, withdrew his request for custody of the minor children. The court at the conclusion of the final hearing announced as a condition of awarding custody to Mrs. Draper that Steven Stapleton would not be allowed to come around the children or the marital home which was awarded to Mrs. Draper. The trial court confirmed its announced condition by a restriction in the final judgment that provided:
2. Permanent custody of the minor children of this marriage, to — wit: JOHN DAVID DRAPER, JR., DANIEL DRAPER, SCOTT DRAPER, and AMY DRAPER, is hereby granted to Wife, with the requirement that STEVEN W. STAPLE-TON shall not be permitted to come around the children or the house, formerly the marital domicile of the parties hereto, unless the Respondent, LINDA L. DRAPER, marries him. Husband shall have reasonable visitation rights with the said children.
The court ordered this restriction in the absence of a finding that Mr. Stapleton adversely affected the children’s welfare, and in the absence of any competent, substantial evidence in the record that would have supported such a finding. Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1975); Hackley v. Hackley, 380 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979). The restriction is also overbroad in that it prohibits Mr. Stapleton from visiting the home even when the children are not present. Such visits could have no adverse effect on the children. See Patrick v. Patrick, 358 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
The welfare of the children is the court’s prime consideration in a child custody proceeding. If, after an award of custody, a custodial parent engages in conduct or associations that adversely affect the minor children, the court has continuing jurisdiction to enter appropriate orders to protect the children. To impose prior conditions upon the custodial parent which are not supported by the evidence, however, is an abuse of discretion.
Consequently, we strike the restriction of Mr. Stapleton’s visits and affirm the order in all other respects.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and BOARD-MAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1975)
- Robley H. Hackley, II v. Hackley, 380 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979)
- Patrick v. Patrick, 358 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)