VERNON MYRICK, APPELLANT,
v.
TRACY MYRICK, 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 splitting custody of children without specific findings justifying such a separation is improper and requires reversal.
The trial court ordered that the parties' two children, a daughter and a son, be placed in the residential custody of different parents. No findings w…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
We reverse the portion of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage splitting custody of the two children of the parties.
The trial court ordered that residential custody of the 8-year-old daughter be with the mother and that residential custody of the 2-year-old son be with the father. There were no findings made in support thereof.
As the Florida Supreme Court said in Arons v. Arons, 94 So. 2d 849, 853 (Fla.1957), “[Splitting custody] will result in further destruction of what is left, after divorce, of this family unit. We are of the view that the children in a family should not be separated from each other and distributed about in different homes, except for the most compelling cause.” We do not find any such compelling cause reflected in the order or the record.
The father asks that he be awarded custody of both children. There appears to be much in support of the father’s request, for example, the HRS custody report. Yet the record does not appear to show that the mother is unfit to have custody. In fact, the HRS report concluded that neither parent was unfit.
Under these circumstances we must reverse. But it seems inappropriate that this court now further inject itself into a situation which the trial court is in a much better position to evaluate and resolve.
Accordingly, we remand to the trial court to either make written or verbal findings to justify the split of custody or to hold a hearing to determine which parent should have custody of both children.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deysi Delgado v. Silvarrey, 528 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…d displacement in their young lives by virtue of the final judgment of dissolution which separated them, an arrangement generally disfavored except in the most compelling circumstances. See Arons v. Arons, 94 So. 2d 849 (Fla.1957); Myrick v. Myrick, 523 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Bache v. Bashir, 482 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 492 So. 2d 1330 (Fla.1986). The trial court's order further disrupts their lives by separating them geographically from their mother. Balancing these considerations, th…
-
Matias v. Matias, 948 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…commendation and incorporated it into the final judgment. We recognize the principle that a court should not generally separate siblings as part of a dissolution of marriage absent compelling circumstances to support doing so. See Myrick v. Myrick, 523 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (citing Arons v. Arons, 94 So. 2d 849 (Fla.1957)). This principle arises out of a recognition that in many cases, splitting children among divorcing parents “will result in further destruction of what is left, after divorce, of th…
-
Sickels v. Sickels, 221 So. 3d 778 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…reason to do so. Although there are circumstances that justify separating siblings, “the children in a family should not be separated from each other and distributed about in different homes, except for the most compelling cause.” Myrick v. Myrick, 523 So. 2d 172, 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (quoting Arons v. Arons, 94 So. 2d 849, 853 (Fla. 1957)). Here, the judgment lacks any finding of a compelling reason to separate the siblings. The trial court’s finding that A.S. is doing well in his current placement does…
Authorities Cited
- Arons v. Arons, 94 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1957)