JERRY L. NICHOLS, APPELLANT,
v.
ELIZABETH A. NICHOLS, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Shared Parental Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an order assigning to appellee “the primary parental responsibility for the care and upbringing” of the parties’ children. Section 61.13(2)(b) 2 Fla.Stat. provides that:
The court shall order that the parental responsibility for a minor child be shared by both parents unless the court finds that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child.
In the present case the court found that “it would be in the best interest” of the children that appellee have primary parental responsibility. However, the court did not indicate whether shared parental responsibility would be detrimental, and we conclude that the “best interest” standard ap plied in the order before us does not obviate the necessity for the finding required by the statute.
The order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for entry of an order, with or without further evidence, indicating the trial court’s determination as to whether or not shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the children.
ERVIN and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hunter v. Hunter, 540 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…al responsibility to the mother absent a specific finding that “shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child[ren].” § 61.13(2)(b)2, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1986); see Hicks v. Hicks, 511 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Nichols v. Nichols, 432 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); see also Holland v. Holland, 458 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). We therefore reverse that portion of the final judgment granting Mrs. Hunter, sole parental responsibility, and remand to enable the trial court to make the determi…
-
Perez v. Perez, 767 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…ibility to be mother absent a specific finding that ‘shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the children,’ ”) (quoting § 61.13(2)(b)2, Fla. Stat. (supp.1986); and Hicks v. Hicks, 511 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Nichols v. Nichols, 432 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Holland v. Holland, 458 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)). Indeed, we have located no Florida cases which have upheld a modification of custody in the absence of a showing of detriment and none of the cases relied upon by our colle…
-
Markham v. Markham, 485 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…ilities of child rearing. . § 61.13(2)(b)2.a., Fla.Stat. (1983); see Vazquez v. Vazquez, 443 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), review denied, 451 So. 2d 851 (Fla.1984). . See Holland v. Holland, 458 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Nichols v. Nichols, 432 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). . See Bentzoni v. Bentzoni, 442 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), Kissinger v. Mason, 436 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) and Frye v. Frye, 385 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (rehabilitative alimony does not automatically termina…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence