RANDY E. DICKMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
SUZANNE M. DICKMAN, 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.
Trial court properly conducted ex parte hearing on emergency child return motion but erred in conducting contempt and custody modification hearings without notice, violating due process.
A trial court may conduct an ex parte hearing on a motion for child return under exigent circumstances but cannot conduct hearings on contempt and custody modification motions without notice once emergency circumstances have ceased.
[1] A trial court may conduct an ex parte hearing on a motion for return of a child under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure rule 1.610 when exigent emergency circumstances exi…
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 intelligenceDivorced parents engaged in a custody, support, and visitation dispute. The trial court held hearings on the former wife's motions for child return an…
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 Emergency Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal reflects an unfortunately all too common convoluted child custody, support and visitation dispute between the divorced parents.
It would serve no useful purpose to outline all the movements and strategies of the parties in their efforts to best each other. Based upon the appellate presentment we hold:
1. The trial court, pursuant to rule 1.610, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, was justified in conducting the hearing on the former wife’s motion for return of the child and her motion for child pick-up, all without notice to the husband, because of the exigent emergency circumstances reflected in the record. We affirm as to these adjudications.
2. It was error for the trial court to conduct a hearing on the former wife’s motion for contempt and the former husband’s motion for change of custody, all without notice to the husband, because by that time the exigent circumstances had been eliminated. Such procedure deprived the husband of his due process rights of notice and the opportunity to have his day in court. See generally 26 Fla.Jur.2d Family Law § 746 (1981).
We reverse as to these matters and remand with instructions to grant a new hearing to the husband preceded by proper notice.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
ANSTEAD, WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Offerman v. Offerman, 650 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…to return the children to the wife. See Offerman v. Offerman, 643 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). We have now completed our review and find that exigent [*1140] circumstances existed which justified the trial court’s action. See Dickman v. Dickman, 536 So. 2d 1079, 1080 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). We therefore lift the stay and affirm the trial court. AFFIRMED with instructions to return the children to the husband. W. SHARP, GOSHORN and DIAMANTES, JJ., concur.…