CYNTHIA PAULK BUSHMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
TIMOTHY ALAN BUSHMAN, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred by not applying the stricter standard required when awarding custody to non-parents over a natural parent's objection.
[1] A court does not exceed its jurisdiction by entering an order regarding the care, custody, and parental responsibility for a minor child.
[2] When a court places custody and parental responsibility for a minor child with a non-parent over the objection of a natural parent, a stricter standard than the "best int…
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 intelligenceThe trial court entered a dissolution order placing the parties' minor child's custody with the appellee's parents. The order cited the child's welfar…
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 Best Interests Of The Child cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of a dissolution order by which the “care, custody and parental responsibility” for the parties’ minor child was placed with appellee’s parents. We find that the court did not exceed its jurisdiction in rendering the order appealed. However, we further find that the order indicates an incomplete consideration of the custody standard announced in Pape v. Pape, 444 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We therefore reverse the order appealed and remand the cause for entry of a new order upon the court’s consideration of the Pape standard.
In placing custody of the minor child with appellee’s parents the court indicated that “the issue of the welfare of the child” was tried, and that “the best interests of the child” require that sole parental responsibility be with appellee’s parents. But while the best interests of the child would generally be the governing criteria in a custody dispute between two natural parents, Pape establishes that a stricter standard must be applied when custody and parental responsibility for a minor child is placed with a non-parent over the objection of a natural parent. See also In Re the Guardianship of D.A.McW., 460 So. 2d 368 (Fla.1984). Pape explicitly provides that such a custody decree is appropriate only upon a determination that the natural parent is “unfit or unqualified to have custody or that the welfare of the child requires denial of the claim on that basis.... ”
In the present case the trial court did not reference either Pape or D.A.McW., and the court’s order does not indicate a full consideration of the relevant criteria. We therefore conclude that the order must be reversed and the cause remanded for reconsideration in light of the standard announced in Pape. By this action we express no opinion as to the propriety of placing custody and parental responsibility with appellee’s parents upon a consideration of the totality of the circumstances in light of Pape.
Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
ERVIN and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE v. Meeks, 592 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…rce action. However, both Tennessee and Florida adhere to the principle that in a custody dispute between a parent and another person, even a grandparent, the parent has the right to custody unless he or she is found to be unfit. Bushman v. Bushman, 475 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Harkness v. Harkness, 531 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Cherry v. Cherry, 508 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Besade v. Besade, 312 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Bush v. Bush, 684 S.W. 2d 89 (Tenn.App.1984) (noting that this…
Authorities Cited
- In re Guardianship OF D.A.McW. v. McWHITE, 460 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1984)
- Pape v. Pape, 444 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)