LOLETA ROBIN JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES STANLEY JOHNSON, 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 District Court of Appeal affirmed a circuit court's decision to modify a custody decree by transferring permanent custody of a four-and-a-half-year-old child from the mother to the father. The court held that the mother's relocation to Canada with unstable immigration status and financial dependence, combined with the child's demonstrated anxiety and loss of relationship with the father, constituted sufficient adverse change in the child's living conditions to justify modification of the existing custody order.
The court affirmed the modification of custody, holding that the mother's move to Canada with unstable immigration status and financial dependence, combined with the child's demonstrated anxiety and disrupted relationship with the father, constituted substantial competent evidence of adverse change in the child's living conditions sufficient to justify modification of the prior custody decree.
[1] A change of permanent child custody previously ordered by judicial decree requires evidence that the custodial parent's circumstances substantially changed the child's li…
[2] A child's spontaneous statements are admissible to show her state of mind regarding her living situation.
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“proceedings for changing child custody once judicially decreed are not occasions for monitoring, in morally judgmental terms not demonstrably related to the child's welfare in fact, the post-dissolution sexual or other personal conduct of the custodial parent”
Establishes that custody modification must focus on the child's actual welfare, not moral judgment of the custodial parent's conduct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties' marriage was dissolved two years prior by stipulated judgment awarding permanent custody of their daughter to the mother. The mother subs…
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 Welfare cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Chief Judge.
The circuit court changed permanent custody of the parties’ four-and-a-half year-old daughter from the mother, to whom permanent custody had been granted by stipulated judgment dissolving the marriage two years earlier, to the father. On the mother’s appeal we have carefully examined the record for evidence tending to show, as required for change of custody previously ordered by judicial decree, that the mother’s custody substantially changed the child’s living conditions in a way adversely affecting the child. Lisenby v. Lisenby, 419 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Culpepper v. Culpepper, 408 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
Putting aside credibility questions as beyond our province, we find substantial competent evidence that the child’s welfare was in fact adversely affected in the mother’s custody: she moved to Canada, where she had no stable immigration status and was financially dependent upon a man in process of divorce, with whom she lived in expectation of eventual marriage; the child displayed anxiety over the situation, as evidenced by spontaneous statements that were admissible to show her state of mind, section 90.803(3), Florida Statutes (1981); and the child lost, during her Canadian absences, a regular and continuing relationship with her Jacksonville father, which on this particular record could have been regarded as especially beneficial. Although the circuit court’s order did not articulate these factors, which would have been desirable, it is enough that the record displays them.
Lisenby and Culpepper make clear that proceedings for changing child custody once judicially decreed are not occasions for monitoring, in morally judgmental terms not demonstrably related to the child’s welfare in fact, the post-dissolution sexual or other personal conduct of the custodial parent. See also Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1975). We find no suggestion here that the able circuit judge departed from the appropriate standard. We note that the modification order reserves ample visitation privileges to the mother. AFFIRMED.
McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McINTYRE v. Nance Ruth McINTYRE, 452 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…f the trial judge to even consider change in circumstances, my respected colleagues would excuse this patent error on the supposition that “such a finding is unnecessary” because “it is enough that the record displays it,” citing Johnson v. Johnson, 422 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Affirming the order below on this reasoning is error for several reasons. In the first place, in Johnson the trial court’s order contained only a general conclusion that the best interest of the child and substantial change of…1 / 2
-
Leckel v. Leckel, 502 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…ally, we find no authority for the wife’s proposition that the trial judge must make findings of fact. To the contrary Vandergriff v. Vandergriff, 456 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1984); Carty v. Carty, 436 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), and Johnson v. Johnson, 422 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), all indicate otherwise. As was stat [*84] ed in McIntyre v. McIntyre, 452 So. 2d 14, 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984): We conclude that the pleadings before the court adequately presented a material and substantial change in the conditio…
-
Carty v. Carty, 436 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…rd including the testimony of Patti, Joe, a clinical psychologist and the several exhibits reveals ample competent evidence to support the conclusion that it was in the child’s best interest that Joe continue to have custody. See Johnson v. Johnson, 422 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The trial judge’s findings and conclusions are affirmed. Patti’s motion for rehearing and new trial sought an additional hearing to adduce evidence and testimony available at the time of the modification hearing but not present…
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
- Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1975)
- Culpepper v. Culpepper, 408 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Hampton v. State, 419 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Lisenby v. Lisenby, 419 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)