AUGUST W. DRIESLEIN, FORMER HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
PATRICIA ANN DRIESLEIN, FORMER WIFE, 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.
Former husband appealed an order restricting his child visitation privileges following a 1981 divorce. The trial court maintained alternate weekend visitation while ordering both parties to undergo psychological evaluation and counseling. The appellate court affirmed, finding the order was temporary in nature and within the trial court's continuing jurisdiction to modify custody arrangements based on the child's welfare.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering the December 21, 1983 order. The order was temporary in nature, designed to allow for psychological evaluations and counseling while maintaining the husband's visitation rights, with further proceedings anticipated regarding readjustment and enlargement of visitation privileges.
[1] Child custody matters are continuing in nature, and trial courts possess continuing jurisdiction to effectuate a plan that will best serve the welfare of the child and th…
[2] An order restricting child visitation privileges may be affirmed as a temporary solution if further proceedings are contemplated for readjustment and enlargement of those…
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“Trial courts possess continuing jurisdiction to effectuate a plan that will best serve the welfare of the child and the rights of the parties.”
Establishes the foundational principle that trial courts have ongoing authority to modify custody and visitation arrangements based on the child's best interests
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 were divorced in 1981 with an initial uncontested decree providing the husband reasonable visitation privileges. Since the divorce, the pa…
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 Custody Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order relating to child custody brought pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(3)(C)(iii). The parties were divorced in 1981. The judgment contained a provision allowing the husband reasonable visitation privileges. The initial divorce decree was uncontested but since that time the parties have found it necessary to go to court quite often regarding child custody matters and issues of contempt regarding visitation. Unfortunately, the matter has been before several different judges. The husband now appeals an order entered December 21, 1983, contending that the trial court erroneously restricted his visitation privileges. The former wife has not favored this court with a brief.
We affirm with the following cautionary comments. The order in question of December 21, 1983, maintained the husband’s visition privileges in accordance with a prior schedule entered as a result of an emergency hearing. The husband was allowed to visit on alternate weekends. The order provides that all parties are to proceed with mental health counseling and to undergo phychological evaluations concerning ability to care for and provide for the minor children of the parties. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services was to furnish the court with various evaluations. The hearing resulting in the order of December 21, 1983, was really only a discussion between the trial judge and the various parties. During this discussion, the parties agreed to submit to psychological evaluation and counseling. The face of the trial court’s order makes it quite clear that it is of a temporary nature and that further proceedings are to occur regarding readjustment and enlargement of the husband’s visitation privileges. Proceedings regarding child visitation and custody are continuing in nature. Trial courts possess continuing jurisdiction to effectuate a plan that will best serve the welfare of the child and the rights of the parties. Diaco v. Diaco, 363 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), and Hechler v. Hechler, 351 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The order under appeal is, at most, a temporary solution and under the circumstances, we do not conclude that the trial court has abused its discretion. The order is therefore affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
BERANEK, HERSEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Diaco v. Diaco, 363 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Daewid Hechler v. Marita Hechler, 351 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)