GERALD CLARK, APPELLANT,
v.
CAROL CLARK, 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.
Gerald Clark appealed the dismissal of his motion seeking enforcement of visitation rights against his former wife Carol Clark. The appellate court reversed the dismissal, finding that Clark sought only enforcement of existing visitation rights, not a custody modification, and was entitled to court assistance in accessing his children.
The court reversed the dismissal, holding that Clark sought only enforcement of existing visitation rights awarded by final judgment, not a custody change, and was therefore entitled to court assistance in accessing his children.
[1] A motion seeking enforcement of visitation rights is distinct from a motion seeking a change in custody.
[2] A party seeking enforcement of visitation rights is entitled to court assistance if denied access to children.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“It is clear to us, from the pleading and argument, that appellant seeks only enforcement of those visitation rights awarded him by terms of the final judgment, and not a custody change.”
The court's determination of the legal issue presented and the distinction between enforcement and modification.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGerald Clark, a father of three children, filed a pro se motion against his former wife Carol Clark to enforce visitation rights allegedly denied to h…
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 Modification Of Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, father of three children, commenced this pro se action against the mother and former wife on a pleading styled: “Motion: Rule to Show Cause Why Fathers [sic] Parenting Rights Should Not Be Restored.”1 The mother responded with a motion to dismiss the father’s motion for the reason that “it is apparently an effort on behalf of the Husband [sic] to change custody and does not set forth the required allegations therefor.” After a hearing, the husband’s motion was dismissed without explanation.
It is clear to us, from the pleading and argument, that appellant seeks only enforcement of those visitation rights awarded him by terms of the final judgment, and not a custody change. If, as he contends, the mother and her new husband have denied him access to the children, then he is entitled to the immediate assistance of the court.
Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.
.The motion reads in its entirety:
The Respondent, Gerald Clark pursuant to Florida Statue [sic] 61.13, moves this Honorable Court to restore the Parenting rights of the father. As grounds for said Motion the Respondent would state:
1. The children have been denied the companionship and love of the father. 2. The father has been denied the companionship and love of the children.
3. The court ordered visitation and rights of visitation have been denied to the children and the father. 4. The Petitioner Carol Clark, last known as Carol Lewis and Gary Lewis where [sic] allowed to violate Florida Chapter 787.04, noted in order issused [sic] Jan., 1979.
5. The children have been moved again, making this the fifth location in six years, present whereabouts unknown to father. 6. The vilolation [sic] of the father’s and children’s rights must be stopped.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the Father moves this Honorable Court to enter an order granting Custody rights to the Father, Gerald Clark purauant [sic] to Florida Statue [sic] 61.13.