CARRIE DIANE GINDER, APPELLANT,
v.
CARL L. GINDER, 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 a change in child custody cannot be ordered purely as a method of punishment and requires evidence of changed circumstances and the children's best interests.
Appellant appealed an order changing primary residential responsibility for the parties' sons from appellant to appellee. This was the third appeal co…
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 Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellant appeals an “Order Changing Primary Residential Responsibility” for the parties’ two sons from appellant to appel-lee. We reverse.
This Court has dealt with this case in two previous opinions. Ginder v. Ginder, 531 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) [Ginder I] and Ginder v. Ginder, 536 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) [Ginder II], In Ginder II, this Court reversed the order upon which the instant order was based, recognizing that a “court cannot change residential custody purely as a method of punishment.” Breeding v. Breeding, 515 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). See also Crippen v. Crippen, 508 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) and Agudo v. Agudo, 411 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). As this Court further determined,
... the court was not free to issue a change of custody order without evidence that a substantial or material change in the circumstances of the parties has taken place and that the best interests of the children would be served by such a change. E.g. Crippen ... (emphasis supplied).
See also section 61.13, Florida Statutes.
Therefore, based upon the history of the instant case and the rationale set forth in Ginder II, we reverse the order on appeal.
BOOTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nury Agudo v. Marcelo Agudo, 411 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Crippen v. Crippen, 508 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Perez v. Ford Motor Corp., 508 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Breeding v. Breeding, 515 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Ginder v. Ginder, 536 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Ginder v. Ginder, 531 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)