RAYMOND SAVOY, APPELLANT,
v.
BRENDA SAVOY, 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.
In this family law appeal, the court affirmed a modification order granting the mother sole custody following the father's abduction of the children to Arizona, but reversed the provision allowing the mother to unilaterally arrange the father's visitation at her discretion, finding such an arrangement rendered visitation illusory and required remand for specific visitation terms.
The court affirmed the modification of custody to sole parental responsibility in the mother and the restriction of visitation, but reversed the provision allowing the mother to unilaterally arrange visitation at her discretion. The court held that visitation terms must be specifically defined as to time, place, and supervisory safeguards rather than left to the whim of a hostile parent.
[1] A trial court may modify a custody order upon a showing of substantial change in circumstances.
[2] A parent's abduction of children can constitute a substantial change in circumstances justifying modification of custody.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Allowing visitation based on the whim or discretion of an irate adverse party — and this record reveals considerable hostility between the parents — renders that privilege illusory.”
Establishes that visitation arrangements cannot be left to the discretionary control of a hostile parent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRaymond and Brenda Savoy were divorced in 1983 with primary custody granted to the mother. In May 1985, the father took the children to Arizona and ke…
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 Sole Parental Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The appellant, Raymond Savoy, and the appellee, Brenda Joy Savoy, were divorced in 1983. The final judgment of dissolution granted primary custody of the parties’ minor sons to the mother. In May, 1985, the father took the children and secreted them in Arizona. The mother located them one year later in May, 1986, and regained physical custody. In June, 1986, she filed a petition for modification asking the court to award her sole parental responsibility due to the abduction and to restrict any visitation allowed the father by requiring that it be supervised.
After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a modification order terminating shared parental responsibility and granting Brenda Savoy sole custody of, and parental responsibility for, the two children. The order also provided:
2. The Former Husband shall be allowed restricted and limited visitation with the children, which shall take place at the home of the Former Wife’s parents at 2270 State Road 17 South, Avon Park, Florida 33825. Said visitation shall be arranged by the Former Wife and she shall give the Former Husband thirty (30) days notice of when said visitation shall take place.
Raymond Savoy appeals the modification order, contending (1) the trial court applied the wrong standard of proof to the evidence; (2) the order was contrary to the evidence; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the mother to arrange the father’s visitation at her convenience, thereby effectively denying the father’s visitation altogether. We find no merit in the first two points, but agree with the appellant as to the third. Allowing visitation based on the whim or discretion of an irate adverse party — and this record reveals considerable hostility between the parents — renders that privilege illusory. See Murphy v. Tallardy, 412 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA), petition for review denied, 419 So. 2d 1199 (Fla.1982). It is represented in the appellant’s brief that, as a result of the foregoing provision in the modification order, Brenda Savoy “has not seen fit to allow (Raymond Savoy) to exercise his right to visitation.” This is not denied by the appellee’s brief, and, even if it were, the unbridled discretion granted the mother as to the father’s visitation is as inappropriate here as it was in Murphy. Consequently, we strike paragraph 2 from the modification order and remand to the trial court to specifically define the father’s visitation rights as to time and place, and any supervisory safeguards attendant thereto.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
SHARP, C.J., and DANIEL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Neli Montalvo v. Montalvo, 949 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…f any kind); Letourneau v. Letourneau, 564 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (reversing judgment awarding husband visitation to be exercised upon approval of wife and remanding with instructions that the trial court establish schedule); Savoy v. Savoy, 529 So. 2d 829, 830 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (reversing judgment that awarded father “restricted and limited visitation,” but permitted mother to determine when such visitation would occur). Lastly, the trial court included a provision in the final judgment providing…
-
Waugh v. Caren Waugh, 705 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
-
Graciella Arroyo McCALL v. Alfonso, 561 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ody dispute. Until a supervisor is named, and other conditions are specified — by agreement of the parties or, failing that, by order of the court — it cannot be said that controlled visitation constitutes an abuse of discretion. See Savoy v. Savoy, 529 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Affirmed. . The natural father, a named appellee in the petition for review, has abandoned his separate appeal.…
Authorities Cited
- Murphy v. Tallardy, 412 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)