BARBARA PERRYMAN SHERROD, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES ZORN SHERROD, 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.
In this custody appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision to award primary custody of a five-year-old child to his father following the parents' divorce. The court held that the trial court properly considered all relevant factors and did not abuse its discretion in relying on expert psychiatric testimony showing the mother suffered from a paranoia disorder while finding the father mentally stable.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding primary custody to the father. After considering all relevant evidence, particularly the court-appointed psychiatrist's testimony regarding the mother's mental condition and the father's stability, the trial court properly determined it was in the child's best interest to reside primarily with the father.
[1] A trial court may order a child to reside primarily with the father, giving the father the same consideration as the mother in determining custody, without regard to the…
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in awarding primary residential custody to a father when expert testimony indicates the mother suffers from a mental disorder…
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“Upon considering all relevant factors, trial courts should give the father the same consideration as the mother in determining custody without regard to the age of the child.”
Establishes the statutory standard that fathers and mothers must receive equal consideration in custody determinations under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarbara and James Sherrod married in 1974 and had one child, James Jr., who was five years old at the time of trial in 1983. James petitioned for diss…
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 Parental Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
This is an appeal from the trial court’s decision that the parties’ minor child reside primarily with the father. We affirm.
Barbara and James married in 1974. They had one child, James Jr., who was five years old at the time of the final hearing in 1983. In 1982, James petitioned for dissolution of marriage requesting primary custody of James Jr. Barbara did not contest the dissolution, but counterpeti-tioned seeking, among other things, primary custody of the child.
In addition to the parties’ own testimony and other lay testimony, two expert witnesses testified at the final hearing. Dr. Albert Davis, a court-appointed psychiatrist, testified he examined the mother and the father. He found the father well adjusted and mentally stable. However, he found the mother mentally unstable and diagnosed her as suffering from a paranoia disorder. Davis opined that the child would be better off living with the father. Robert Crankshaw, a licensed marriage and family therapist, gave expert testimony for the mother. Crankshaw testified he watched the mother and child interacting, and, based on what he saw, it was his opinion that the mother was the primary nurturing figure for the child and was capable of taking care of him. Crankshaw also testified that separating the child from the mother would be traumatic for the child. Crankshaw did not observe the father and child interacting and therefore formed no opinion of that relationship.
Following the final hearing, the trial court dissolved the marriage. Although the court ordered the parties to share parental responsibility, it decreed that the child’s primary residence be with the father, allowing visitation with the mother on alternate weekends and for two months during the summer. Upon considering all relevant factors, trial courts should give the father the same consideration as the mother in determining custody without regard to the age of the child. Section 61.13(2)(b)l, Florida Statutes (1983).
After considering all the evidence, especially the court-appointed psychiatrist’s testimony concerning the mother’s mental condition, the trial court could find it was in the best interest of the child that he reside primarily with the father. The trial court did not abuse its discretion.
AFFIRMED.
SMITH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miraglia v. Miraglia, 462 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…. Children should never be used as a substitute for formal psychiatric treatment in order to help transform an unstable and unhappy home into a stable, happy one. Bienvenu v. Bienvenu, 380 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); and see Sherrod v. Sherrod, 448 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) and Ashleman v. Ashleman, 381 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). In this regard, the best interests of the children must take precedence over those of their parent or parents. The record before us is replete with testimony that life…
-
Stamm v. Marjorie Faith (Biggs) Stamm, 489 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…ntended, for one of the parents. Bienvenu v. Bienvenu, 380 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). After considering all relevant factors a trial court should give the father the same consideration as the mother when determining custody. Sherrod v. Sherrod, 448 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We also take note that the trial court erred by improperly admitting into evidence a settlement proposal and testimony on negotiations concerning the child custody dispute. The father and the mother had engaged a mediator who h…
-
Lord v. Carter Lord, 566 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…erse in part. The former wife challenges the award of custody of the parties’ two minor children to the former husband. Our review of the record discloses no basis upon which to disturb the trial court’s exercise of discretion. Sherrod v. Sherrod, 448 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Her remaining issues on appeal focus mainly on the trial court’s determination to decrease the lump sum award and the inadequacy of the $500 per month rehabilitative alimony. We disagree with the trial court’s reduction, in an…