ERIC A. SIMON, APPELLANT,
v.
RENEE M. SIMON, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1983-08-03
No. 83-179
DOWNEY and BERANEK, JJ., concur.
435 So. 2d 941 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1983)

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.

Synopsis

A father appealed a trial court's decision allowing the custodial mother to relocate with their minor child from Florida to another state. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court's determination that relocation was in the child's best interest was supported by substantial, competent evidence and entitled to deference.


Holding

The trial court's decision allowing relocation was proper and affirmed. The determinative factor in custody cases is the best interest of the minor child, and when the trial court's findings are supported by substantial, competent evidence, appellate courts must afford the trial court wide latitude and not disturb those findings.


Headnotes

[1] The best interests of the minor child are the determinative factor in custody decisions.

[2] In custody cases, the best interests of the child may be synonymous with the best interests of the newly created family unit composed of the children and the custodial pa…

Previewing 2 of 5 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

Key Quotes

“The trial court's function is, therefore, simply to ferret out the best solution and the determinative factor is the best interest of the minor children involved.”

Establishes that the paramount consideration in custody cases is the child's best interest, not the parents' preferences.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

An earlier dissolution of marriage judgment awarded custody of a minor child to the mother with extensive visitation rights to the father. The origina…

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.


Opinion of the Court
HERSEY, Judge.

HERSEY, Judge.

This appeal concerns an unsuccessful application by a father to change the custody of a minor child or, in the alternative, to enjoin the mother from moving the residence of the child from the state of Florida.

An earlier dissolution of marriage judgment granted custody to the mother and gave the father extensive visitation privileges. The final judgment contained no prohibition against changing the residence of the minor child. However, upon the mother’s later stated intention to relocate her residence, and thus that of the minor child, to a northern state, the father instituted the present action. After a hearing before a general master, the trial court determined that it was in the best interest of the minor child not to restrict his residence to Florida. The father appeals. We affirm.

In these difficult custody cases requiring detailed analysis of subjective factors there is no perfect solution. The trial court’s function is, therefore, simply to ferret out the best solution and the determinative factor is the best interest of the minor children involved. Under certain circumstances this is synonymous with the best interests of the newly created family unit composed of the children and the custodial parent. D’Onofrio v. D’Onofrio, 144 N.J.Super. 200, 365 A. 2d 27 (1976), aff’d, 144 N.J.Super. 352, 365 A. 2d 716 (1976).

Given the delicate balance that must be achieved between the competing interests of children, mother, and father, the appellate courts have consistently held that the trier of fact must be afforded wide latitude in making a final determination and in subsequently modifying that determination. When supported by substantial, competent evidence, those findings should not be disturbed. See Johnson v. Johnson, 422 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (DCA upheld change in permanent custody where record showed substantial competent evidence that child’s welfare was adversely affected in mother’s custody); Giachetti v. Giachetti, 416 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (approving trial court order prohibiting removal of children from state); Barnhill v. Barnhill, 353 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (upheld denial of change of custody where evidence showed neither parent unfit to have custody). See also Costa v. Costa, 429 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (where custody originally established “reluctantly” in mother and removal from South Florida specifically prohibited, subsequent modification by trial court not supported by substantial competent evidence was reversed limited to those facts).

In the instant case, the lower court’s findings are supported by substantial competent evidence. Thus, we affirm.

DOWNEY and BERANEK, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw