DONALD C. ADAMS, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
RHONDA S. ADAMS, 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.
Donald Adams appeals a trial court's order removing a geographic restriction that had prohibited both parents from removing their minor child from the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit without mutual written consent or court approval. The appellate court affirmed the removal of the restriction, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a substantial change in circumstances and the child's best interests supported the modification.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in removing the geographic restriction. There was competent substantial evidence of a material change in circumstances (the mother's remarriage and employment relocation to South Florida), and the trial court reasonably determined that the child's best interests would be promoted by the modification.
[1] Modification of a child custody provision requires competent substantial evidence of a substantial or material change in circumstances and that the modification will prom…
[2] A trial court's decision regarding child custody is a matter of discretion and is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
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“To justify the modification of a custody provision, there must be competent substantial evidence that there has been a substantial or material change in circumstances and that the best interests of the child will be promoted.”
Establishes the legal standard for custody modifications that the court applied to evaluate the trial court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDonald and Rhonda Adams' marriage was dissolved in May 1983 with a shared responsibility arrangement and the child's primary residence with the mother…
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 Petition For Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Donald appeals from an order which rescinded a restriction placed on him and Rhonda, as the parents of their minor child, from removing the child from the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit without prior written consent of the other parent or without first obtaining court approval. We affirm.
The marriage of Donald and Rhonda was dissolved on 12 May 1983. The final judgment incorporated the parties’ settlement agreement which established shared responsibility for the couple’s minor child and agreed that the child’s primary residence would be with the mother, subject to the father’s frequent and continuing contact. On 21 June 1983, at a time when the mother was experiencing personal problems and contemplating a move out of state, the trial court modified the final judgment in accordance with a stipulation by the parties. The stipulation changed the child’s primary residence from that of the mother to that of the father and prohibited the mother from removing the child from the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit without the father’s written consent or approval of the court.
After the mother’s situation stabilized, the parties stipulated on 27 September 1983 that the child’s primary residence would be that of the mother and that neither parent could remove the child from the Fourteenth Circuit without written consent of the other parent or consent of the court. The trial court again modified the final judgment.
On 27 June 1984 the mother petitioned for modification, seeking removal of the residency restriction. Following trial on 12 September and 15 September 1984, the trial court approved the modification and removed the Fourteenth Circuit residency restriction. The father appealed.
To justify the modification of a custody provision, there must be competent substantial evidence that there has been a substantial or material change in circumstances and that the best interests of the child will be promoted. McIntyre v. McIntyre, 452 So. 2d 14, 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
The record adequately demonstrates the existence of a substantial change in the mother’s circumstances. The mother has remarried, her new husband’s job training and probable site of employment are in South Florida, and the mother has resigned her position in Panama City and has accepted a position in South Florida.
Whether the best interests of the child will be met by removing the residence restriction and allowing the mother to move the child to South Florida is a more troublesome question. The child would be leaving a stable, nurturing environment; an environment in which the child lives in close proximity to both parents and both sets of grandparents. The impact on the child of separation from the father and of living with the mother’s new husband is, of course, unknown.
We recognize that the trial court has the superior vantage point because it can observe the participants and events of the trial. The trial court’s decision was a matter of discretion. Discretion is abused only when the trial court’s decision is unreasonable. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980). We find no abuse of discretion.
AFFIRMED.
SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dobbins v. Dobbins, 584 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…modification. However, in these cases, the parent had either already made the move, or had made definite plans to do so. See e.g., Cole v. Cole, 530 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Jones v. Vrba, 513 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Adams v. Adams, 477 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Even when such a move is planned or made the move may not be found to be a substantial change of circumstances warranting modification. Gaber v. Gaber, 536 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Delgado v. Silvarrey, 528 So. 2d 1358 (Fl…
-
Mast v. Reed, 578 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…. 1st DCA 1984). . Kantor v. Kantor, 545 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (Glickstein, J., concurring); Parker v. Parker, 519 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (Smith, J., dissenting); Jones v. Vrba, 513 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Adams v. Adams, 477 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Warren v. Warren, 475 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Costa v. Costa, 429 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). .Giachetti, Jones and Cole so far, have primarily impacted women by preventing former wives and mothers with primary resi…
-
Purdon v. Purdon, 529 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…shows, is a competent and loving parent, the trial court’s finding of a substantial change of circumstances warranting modification of residential responsibility for the best interests of the child was not an abuse of discretion. See Adams v. Adams, 477 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), and Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). Therefore, the order of modification is AFFIRMED. JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- McINTYRE v. Nance Ruth McINTYRE, 452 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)