BOBBIE SUE WISHART, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
LESLIE M. BATES (BOGGS), ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 Florida Supreme Court reviewed a Second District Court of Appeal decision that invalidated a trial court's grant of grandparent visitation rights, holding that the district court erred by failing to apply Florida Statute § 61.13(2)(b), which expressly authorizes courts to award grandparent visitation if in the child's best interest.
A trial court may award grandparent visitation rights pursuant to Florida Statute § 61.13(2)(b) if the court determines it is in the child's best interest. On appeal, the trial court's discretionary determination regarding grandparent visitation should be reviewed for abuse of discretion only, not de novo.
[1] A grandparent seeking visitation rights over a parent's objection bears the burden of proving by competent evidence that such visitation is in the child's best interests.
[2] There is no presumption that grandparents are entitled to visitation rights with a child.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“The court may award the grandparents visitation rights of a minor children [sic] if it is deemed by the court to be in the child's best interest.”
Florida Statute § 61.13(2)(b) provision that authorizes grandparent visitation, which the district court had overlooked
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeslie M. Bates (Boggs) petitioned for divorce and custody of her child Tiffany Michelle Bates in 1983. The child's father had given the child to Char…
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 Grandparent Visitation Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
EHRLICH, Chief Justice.
We have for our review Bates v. Wishart, 512 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), which directly and expressly conflicts with decisions of other district courts on the issue of granting visitation rights to grandparents. See Putnal v. Putnal, 392 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Whitehead v. Hewett, 380 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA), dismissed, 385 So. 2d 761 (Fla.1980). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We quash that portion of the decision below which holds the trial court erred in granting visitation to the petitioners.
The following facts are revealed in the decision of the district court below:
In 1983, appellant, Leslie M. Bates (Boggs), petitioned for a divorce alleging that her marriage to Randy Bates was irretrievably broken and sought custody of the parties’ only child, Tiffany Michelle Bates. Appellant additionally sought a court order requiring the return of the child to her custody. She alleged that her husband had removed the child from their marital home and delivered the child to one Charles Wishart (the step-grandfather of the child) and Bobbie Sue Wishart (a grandmother of the child).
The Wisharts, appellees here, were joined as necessary party defendants in the child custody matter pursuant to sections 61.1306 and 61.131, Florida Statutes (1983).
On February 26, 1985, a different trial judge entered a final judgment holding that the Bates’ marriage was irretrievably broken and granted shared parental responsibility to the parents. Appellant was given primary residence of the child. The Wisharts appealed the final judgment. The natural father did not contest the order of the court below.
512 So. 2d at 978. After the district court remanded with directions to afford the Wis-harts an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, Wishart v. Bates, 487 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), the trial judge awarded the Wisharts visitation rights with the child on every other Saturday. 512 So. 2d at 979.
On appeal, the district court held that the trial court erred in granting visitation rights to the Wisharts because “ ‘[a]n order granting visitation rights to a non-parent of a child whose custody has been awarded to a fit parent is unjustified and unenforceable.’ ” Id. (quoting Sheehy v. Sheehy, 325 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)). In support of its holding, the district court also relied on Tamargo v. Tamargo, 348 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), and Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 295 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). These decisions, however, were issued prior to the effective date of section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp.1978), which provides in relevant part: “The court may award the grandparents visitation rights of a minor children [sic] if it is deemed by the court to be in the child’s best interest.” The existence of this statute was apparently overlooked by the parties and the district court.
Accordingly, the district court below erred in holding that the trial court could not grant visitation to the Wisharts and we quash that portion of the decision below. We remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Because section 61.13(2)(b) provides that an award of visitation rights to a grandparent may be made by the trial court if it is deemed to be in the child’s best interests, the only issue before the district court on remand will be whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that awarding visitation to the Wisharts was in the child’s best interests. See Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1975) (When the trial court, in a custody proceeding, makes a determination on the basis of the best interests of the child, the appellate court should not reverse absent a showing of abuse of discretion.).
It is so ordered.
overton, McDonald, shaw, BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur. GRIMES, J., Did not participate in this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spence v. Stewart, 705 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…la. 2d DCA 1991). Under section 61.13(2)(b)(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1995), a court may award grand-parental visitation rights in a dissolution proceeding if the court deems that such visitation is in the child’s best interest. In Wishart v. Bates, 531 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1988), the supreme court approved grandparental visitation rights based upon the best interest of the child in a dissolution proceeding. We applied the statute to grandparental visitation rights in connection with a paternity action in Moore, 6…
-
Moore v. Cezar Trevino, 612 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…grandfather supervised contact only. Section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp.1978), provides that a court may award grandparents visitation rights if the court deems that such visitation would be in the child’s best interest. Wishart v. Bates, 531 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1988) (emphasis supplied); see also § 61.13(2)(b)2.c.5 However, the record is replete with evidence to indicate that unsupervised visitation with the grandparents would not serve the child’s best interests. Thus, we reverse the trial court’s or…
-
Leslie Bates (Boggs) v. Wishart, 545 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…es Wishart (the child’s step-grandfather). Pursuant to the supreme court’s opinion, our jurisdiction on remand is limited to deciding whether the trial court abused its discretion in making its visitation award to the Wisharts. See Wishart v. Bates, 531 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1988). We find that the trial court did abuse its discretion and reverse. The facts in this case are set forth in our previous opinion, Bates v. Wishart, 512 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1987), and need not be set forth in detail again. Our revie…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1975)
- Sheehy v. Sheehy, 325 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Rodriguez v. Mariano Rodriguez, Jr., 295 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Terina Tamargo v. Tamargo, 348 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- B & J VAN Beber Equip. Rental, Inc. v. Pedersen, 348 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Wishart v. Bates, 487 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Putnal v. Putnal, 392 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Leslie M. Bates (Boggs) v. Wishart, 512 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Whitehead v. Hewett, 380 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)