ASHLEIGH M. MOYE, N/K/A ASHLEIGH M. LIGGETT
v.
GREGORY D. MOYE
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.
This case concerns child visitation rights following a divorce. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing the public policy of maintaining frequent and continuing contact between children and both parents.
The court affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding the principle that parents should have frequent and continuing contact with their children after separation or divorce, consistent with Florida public policy.
[1] Custody conditions should not be materially amended or changed after entry of a decree unless altered circumstances have arisen since the decree or material facts bearing…
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 intelligence“It is the public policy of this state that each minor child has frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents separate or the marriage of the parties is dissolved and to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities, and joys, of childrearing.”
Establishes the state's public policy regarding parental contact with children post-divorce.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe specific facts leading to the appeal are not detailed in this opinion. However, the case involves a dispute over child visitation rights after the…
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 Parental Visitation Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See § 61.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (“It is the public policy of this state that each minor child has frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents separate or the marriage of the parties is dissolved and to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities, and joys, of childrearing.”); cf. Schutz v. Schutz, 581 So. 2d 1290, 1293 (Fla. 1991) (recognizing “the father’s constitutionally protected ‘inherent right’ to a meaningful relationship with his children,” and characterizing “the state’s interest in restoring a meaningful relationship between the parties’ children and their father” as “at the very least substantial”); Yandell v. Yandell, 39 So. 2d 554, 555 (Fla. 1949) (“The privilege of visiting the minor children of the parties to a divorce proceeding should never be denied either parent so long as he or she conducts himself or herself, while in the presence of such children, in a manner which will not adversely affect the morals or welfare of such progeny.” (emphasis supplied)); Frazier v. Frazier, 147 So. 464, 466 (Fla. 1933) (noting “inherent rights of parents to enjoy the society and association of their offspring, with reasonable opportunity to impress upon them a father’s or a mother’s love and affection in their upbringing,” which are as important as the child’s welfare, “if not controlling,” in consideration of the respective custody as between parents); id. (“No relationship in life should be regarded as more sublime, nor should any inherent right of an individual be esteemed more highly, than that which arises out of the natural relationship of love and affection which normally exists between parent and child . . . .”); see also id. at 465–66 (explaining that conditions of custody ought not “to be materially amended or changed afterward, unless on altered conditions shown to have arisen since the decree, or because of material facts bearing on the question of custody and existing at the time of the decree, but which were unknown to the court” (emphasis supplied)).
B.L. THOMAS, KELSEY, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (105 total)
-
Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)…strict court reversed the trial court’s award to the wife of the husband’s undivided one-half interest in their marital home as lump sum alimony, the award of permanent periodic alimony, and attorney’s fees. We find conflict with Yandell v. Yandell, 39 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1949); Brown v. Brown, 300 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); and Calligarich v. Calligarich, 256 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). We have jurisdiction.1 We reverse the district court and reinstate the judgment of the trial court. This dissolution…
-
Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1986)…se of lump sum alimony. While the remedy had traditionally been based on “need,” or “upon some economic contribution by the wife to the accumulation of property,” Colucci v. Colucci, 392 So. 2d 577, 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), citing Yandell v. Yandell, 39 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1949), Canakaris recognized the usefulness of the remedy in ensuring an equitable distribution of property acquired during the marriage. It created, in effect, a hybrid based on concepts of both property distribution, requiring “a justification…
-
Colucci v. Colucci, 392 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ancellor made these decisions, he was bound by the pre-Canakaris rule that entitlement to lump sum was based either on “need,” like all alimony, or upon some economic contribution by the wife to the accumulation of property. See, Yandell v. Yandell, 39 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1949). He could not have been aware of the monumental [*581] change in the law effected by Canakaris6 that lump sum alimony may, and sometimes must, be employed so as equitably to compensate the wife for the domestic endeavors now regarded as e…
Previewing 3 of 105 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Frazier v. Frazier, 109 Fla. 164 (Fla. 1933)
- Laurel D. Schutz v. Schutz, 581 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 1991)