RICKY KIN RUSE, APPELLANT,
v.
PAMELA K. RUSE, 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 trial court did not err in declining to exercise jurisdiction over a child custody proceeding when the child has not been in Florida since 1983 and lacks significant connection to the state.
A divorced father, a Florida resident, appealed an order declining jurisdiction over a child custody proceeding. The child and her mother had moved to…
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
LEHAN, Judge.
In this child custody proceeding a divorced father, a resident of Florida, appeals from the trial court’s order declining to exercise jurisdiction over a child of the marriage living with her mother in Indiana. We affirm.
Although one child of the marriage is in Florida with the father, the child who is the subject of this proceeding has not been in Florida since July 1983, when her mother moved with her to Indiana. We have considered the father’s arguments and do not conclude that the trial court erred in finding that the pertinent requirements of section 61.1308(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1983), for jurisdiction do not exist. Those requirements are that the child must have a significant connection with this state and that there must be available in this state substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training and personal relationships.
Moser v. Davis, 364 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), relied upon by the father, is distinguishable. Moser involved the emergency provisions of section 61.1308(1)(c), which are applicable when the child is physically present in Florida.
It appears that Indiana is the proper forum for a custody proceeding with respect to the child who is with her mother in Indiana.
Affirmed.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Howard v. Howard, 509 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…a “significant connection” with this state and there is available in Florida “substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships,” see § 61.1308(l)(b), Fla.Stat. (1985). Ruse v. Ruse, 478 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). A Florida court may also assume jurisdiction if it appears that no other state has jurisdiction or has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that Florida would be the appropriate forum to determine custody. The childre…
-
Carlson v. Karon Ritch-Carlson, 741 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
Authorities Cited
- Moser v. Davis, 364 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)