JANET C. DRIES, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID DRIES, 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 appellate court affirmed the trial judge's award of primary residential responsibility for a four-year-old child to the father, finding competent and substantial evidence supported the decision despite the mother's prior primary parental role.
A trial judge's award of primary residential responsibility for a child to the father is affirmed when competent and substantial evidence supports the decision, even if the mother was previously the primary parent.
[1] In child custody disputes, trial judges' determinations regarding primary residential responsibility are entitled to deference on appeal when supported by competent and s…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“in a child custody case, the opportunity of the [trial judge] to observe the demeanor and personalities of the parties and their witnesses and to feel forces, powers and influences that cannot be discerned by merely reading the record, assumes a new importance because of the many intangibles that must be evaluated in deciding the delicate question of child custody.”
The court cited this principle from Grant v. Corbitt to explain why trial judges' custody decisions receive deference on appeal.
In a dissolution of marriage, the trial judge awarded primary residential responsibility for the parties' 4-year-old son to the father, despite the mo…
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 Primary Residential Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Chief Judge.
The wife challenges that part of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage which awarded to the husband the primary residential responsibility for the parties’ 4-year-old son. The wife argues that she had been the child’s primary parent and that there was no evidence before the trial judge to support a finding that the wife should not continue to be the child’s primary parent. However, we find the evidence in conflict on the issue whether the best interests of the child would be better served with the father or with the mother as primary residential parent. There is competent, substantial evidence to support the decision of the trial judge in placing that responsibility upon the father. In assessing the decision of the trial judge, we find this comment by our supreme court many years ago to be particularly pertinent:
[I]n a child custody case, the opportunity of the [trial judge] to observe the demeanor and personalities of the parties and their witnesses and to feel forces, powers and influences that cannot be discerned by merely reading the record, assumes a new importance because of the many intangibles that must be evaluated in deciding the delicate question of child custody.
Grant v. Corbitt, 95 So. 2d 25, 28 (Fla.1957).
Affirmed.
RYDER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.