CHRISTINA M. FISCHER, N/K/A CHRISTINA M. PRICE, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL L. FISCHER, AND EVERETT REIHING AND LEOTA REIHING, APPELLEES
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 a dissolution of marriage case, the trial court allowed maternal great-grandparents to intervene seeking court-ordered visitation with the minor child. The appellate court reversed, holding that Florida statutory law limits judicially decreed visitation rights to grandparents only, and great-grandparents lack statutory standing to intervene in dissolution proceedings.
The trial court erred in permitting the great-grandparents to intervene. Florida statutory law does not confer visitation rights on blood relatives beyond grandparents, and great-grandparents lack legal standing to become parties or contestants in dissolution proceedings.
[1] A trial court errs by allowing maternal great-grandparents to intervene in a dissolution action to seek court-ordered visitation.
[2] Statutory frameworks for grandparental visitation do not confer visitation rights upon blood relatives beyond grandparents.
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“None of the pertinent statutes confers a visitation right by any blood relative in the lineage beyond the grandparents.”
Establishes that statutory visitation rights are limited to grandparents, not great-grandparents or more distant relatives.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChristina Fischer (the mother) was involved in a dissolution of marriage action with Michael Fischer. During the proceedings, Everett and Leota Reihin…
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 Visitation Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
The narrow issue presented for our consideration in this dissolution matter is whether the trial court properly allowed the maternal great-grandparents to intervene with the ultimate objective of seeking court-ordered visitation with the minor great-grandchild. The trial court erred.
We note at the outset that the parties have confused the sole issue we are empowered to consider by raising the question of whether a court can award visitation to a non-parent. Cases from this and other jurisdictions — generally under somewhat extraordinary circumstances — have done so. See, e.g., Wills v. Wills, 399 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). We cannot review that question, however, because the trial court proceedings did not reach the stage where the asserted right of the great-grandparents to visitation was resolved on the merits. Once the order permitting intervention was entered, the appellant, the mother, immediately appealed and the trial court had no opportunity to consider that question.*
Our review of the statutory framework under which grandparental visitation can be ordered convinces us, indeed, that permitting great-grandparental intervention in the dissolution action was erroneous. A significant factor, of course, is the relationship of the intervenors to the child — they are his f/reai-grandparents. None of the pertinent statutes confers a visitation right by any blood relative in the lineage beyond the grandparents.
Under section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1987), grandparents can be awarded visitation rights if it is found to be in the child’s best interest. Once the right is granted the grandparents have standing to seek its enforcement. Grandparents are not required to be parties, however, “nor shall grandparents have legal standing as ‘contestants’ [in the dissolution proceeding] as defined in section 61.1306.” § 61.13(2)(b)2 C, Fla.Stat. See Shuler v. Shuler, 371 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Thus the manifest legislative intent is to keep non-parents, claiming the status of litigants, out of any dissolution struggle involving visitation rights.
Further evidence of the legislative purpose to prohibit grandparents from becoming parties in the original dissolution action, as the great-grandparents have here sought to do, is apparent from section 752.-01, Florida Statutes (1987). That statute permits the filing of an independent action only by a grandparent in pursuit of reasonable visitation, and the legislature alone has the authority to enlarge the statutory class. Moreover, there are sound policy concerns for not expanding that limitation. To allow persons who are outside the statutory range of those eligible for judicially decreed visitation to intervene in the dissolution action would add “a new dimension of consternation and agony to a type of litigation that is” often “over-burdened with almost insoluble problems.” Shuler at p. 590.
We reverse and vacate the trial court’s order granting intervention.
RYDER, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur. *
The motion to intervene was filed and granted following the entry of the final judgment and is, therefore, reviewable in accordance with Rule 9.130(a)(4) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Pacha v. Salfi, 381 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Meeks v. Garner, 598 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…eat-grandparent. See § 752.01, Fla.Stat. (1991). Visitation rights are, with regard to a non-parent, statutory, and the court has no inherent authority to award visitation. Mauldin v. Richter, 515 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Fischer v. Fischer, 544 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Since Jimmy Garner has no legal right to seek visitation or custody, he could not properly claim an interest which would be directly affected by the legal operation of a court order awarding custody solely to the father. See Grim…
-
Russell v. Pasik, 178 So. 3d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…med or involved, then a policy change of this magnitude must be instituted by the legislature, not the courts. See L.D. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 24 So. 3d 754, 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (citing Meeks, 598 So. 2d at 261; Fischer v. Fischer, 544 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)). We also note that the events of this case all occurred prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2584, 192 L.Ed.2d 609 (2015), which held that same-sex couples have a constitutional righ…
-
O'Dell v. O'Dell, 629 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…isitation between a child and one who is neither a parent, grandparent, or great-grandparent.” Meeks v. Garner, 598 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). This court has repeatedly reversed orders giving visitation rights to nonparents. Fischer v. Fischer, 544 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Tamargo v. Tamargo, 348 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). We are aware that a “raging debate” exists concerning the wisdom of granting child visitation to “substitute” parents. See Martin L. Haines, III, Rights of Others in the Li…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wills v. Wills, 399 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Pacha v. Honorable Dominick J. Salfi, 381 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Shuler v. Shuler, 371 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)