TINA RENE HERNANDEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
GERALD HERNANDEZ, SR., 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 Florida Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order that granted the father custody of a two-year-old child based solely on enforcement of a Texas custody decree. The court held that Florida courts must first determine whether the foreign state had jurisdiction before applying the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and that the mother had the right to challenge the Texas court's jurisdiction and assert Florida's competing jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.
A Florida court need give full faith and credit to a foreign custody decree only after first finding that the foreign state had jurisdiction. The mother had the right to be heard on claims that Texas lacked jurisdiction under its own laws, that the Texas decree was inconsistent with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act's residency requirements, and that Florida was the home state and could exercise jurisdiction based on the child's best interests.
[1] A Florida court need only give full faith and credit to a custody decree of a foreign state if it first finds that the foreign state had jurisdiction over the custody iss…
[2] A party has the right to be heard on claims that a foreign state lacked jurisdiction under its own laws to enter a custody decree.
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“Since a court of this state need give full faith and credit to the custody decree of a foreign state only when it first finds that the foreign state had jurisdiction of the custody issue”
Establishes the threshold requirement that a Florida court must determine the foreign state's jurisdiction before applying the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA trial court ordered the mother, Tina Hernandez, to surrender custody of the parties' two-year-old child to the father, Gerald Hernandez, Sr., based …
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 Home State Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The sole reason for the trial court’s order requiring the mother, Tina Hernandez, to turn over custody of the parties’ two-year-old child to the father, Gerald Hernandez, was its belief that the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution1 required it to enforce a Texas custody order in favor of the father and precluded the mother from attacking the jurisdiction of the Texas court in Florida. Since a court of this state need give full faith and credit to the custody decree of a foreign state only when it first finds that the foreign state had jurisdiction of the custody issue, Howard v. Howard, 378 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), see also Geisler v. Geisler, 397 So. 2d 1216 (Fla.2d DCA 1981), it is apparent that Tina Hernandez had a right to be heard on her claims (a) that Texas was without jurisdiction under its own laws to enter a custody decree; (b) that to the extent Texas law permits courts of that state to exercise jurisdiction over minors, inconsistent with the residency requirements of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, Sections 61.1302-61.1348, Florida Statutes (1979), the Texas custody decree need not be recognized2; (c) that in any event, at the time of the hearing below, Florida was the home state of the child under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, and notwithstanding the Texas order, the Florida court was free to exercise jurisdiction and render an appropriate custody order based upon the best interests of the child. See Hegler v. Hegler, 383 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). See also Anderson v. Anderson, 234 So. 2d 772 (Fla.3d DCA 1970) (pre-Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order which granted the father’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and remand the cause with directions to conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We express no view on these or other issues that may be raised by the parties at a full and fair hearing. If the trial court concludes that given the prolonged history of this all too realistic tug of war that the interests of the child would best be served by the appointment of a guardian ad litem, then of course that should be done.
Reversed and remanded.
. U.S. Const., art. IV, § 1, in pertinent part provides:
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State. ...”
. Texas has not adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walt v. Walt, 574 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…rida court may, and in some circumstances should, determine the custody issue so long as its own exercise of jurisdiction meets the UCCJA’s jurisdictional requirements. In re Adoption of C.L.W., supra; Howard, supra. See also Hernandez v. Hernandez, 406 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Appellant’s points on appeal are predicated upon provisions of the UCCJA. However, before discussing them, we first address the impact of the father’s choice to proceed in accordance with the law applicable to a habeas corpus pr…
-
Newcomb v. Newcomb, 507 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…“substantially in conformity” with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. § 61.1314(1), Fla.Stat. (1985); Hickey v. Baxter, 461 So. 2d 1364 [*1146] (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Greene v. Greene, 432 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Hernandez v. Hernandez, 406 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); see also Al-Fassi v. Al-Fassi, 433 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), review denied, 446 So. 2d 99 (Fla.1984); Bonis v. Bonis, 420 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), review denied, 430 So. 2d 450 (Fla.1983). Reversed and remanded.…
-
Herrero v. Matas, 447 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…ll satisfy the test of substantial conformity. Finally, in the absence of any statute, the standard of substantial compliance is satisfied when the court would have had jurisdiction if the other state had enacted the act. See Hernandez v. Hernandez, 406 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (remanding for hearing on whether Texas exercised jurisdiction in conformity with the act since Texas had not enacted the act). See also [*337] Bergstrom v. Bergstrom, 271 N.W. 2d 546, 551 (N.D.1978); Priscilla S. v. Albert B., 10…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hegler v. Hegler, 383 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Howard v. Howard, 378 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Geisler v. Geisler, 397 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)