PEGGY PHELPS, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
JIMMY PHELPS, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 family law appeal, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's custody and visitation order, which provided for supervised visitation by the father with his minor children. The court found no error in the trial judge's careful approach to protecting the children while affording parental rights.
The trial court's visitation order was affirmed. The supervised visitation conditions in the final judgment of September 30, 1986 remain in effect, and the October 7, 1986 amendment was not intended to change those conditions. No modification of visitation may occur without further court order following notice and hearing.
[1] A trial court's judgment regarding child visitation will be affirmed if no error is found in its actions.
[2] An amendment to a final judgment does not alter provisions of the original judgment unless it explicitly states an intent to do so.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“He has painstakingly and patiently attempted to forge a plan that would not only protect the children but also afford the parents their rights.”
Describes the trial judge's careful balancing of child protection with parental visitation rights
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves a dispute between parents over custody and visitation rights concerning minor children. The record revealed problematic conduct by b…
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 Visitation cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
The only issues involved in this appeal concern the manner and extent of visitation privileges appellee/cross-appellant father should be allowed with his minor children. The record indicates a rather sordid mess indicating less than desirable conduct involving the custody and visitation rights with the children on the part of parents and grandparents alike. Early in this appeal, we stayed the final judgment as it affected visitation privileges of the father. In retrospect and after extensive review of the record, we have doubts as to whether our stay was necessary. Nevertheless, we entered our stay order out of an abundance of caution and concern for the welfare of the minor children.
Our further careful review of the record indicates that the trial judge has exemplified that same caution and concern throughout the proceedings below. He has painstakingly and patiently attempted to forge a plan that would not only protect the children but also afford the parents their rights. Because we find no error in the actions of the trial judge, we affirm.
The final judgment of September 30, 1986, provides for specified supervised visitation rights for the father. An amendment to the final judgment was thereafter entered on October 7, 1986. That amendment does not make reference to the supervised visitation contained in the final judgment. Nevertheless, from our reading of the transcripts of those hearings, we are convinced that the trial judge intended no change in the supervised visitation provided in the final judgment until such time as he authorized any change after further notice and hearing.
On remand, the trial judge should take the necessary steps to see that the record below clearly reflects our perception of his intentions that the father’s visitation is to be supervised under the conditions provided in the final judgment of September 30, 1986. The record should further reflect that there shall be no change in that visitation until ordered by the court after notice and full opportunity to be heard by all parties involved.
The proceedings below are otherwise affirmed.
DANAHY, C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.