A.A., APPELLANT,
v.
E.P., 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.
A.A., a non-custodial parent, appealed the dismissal of a complaint seeking relief for expenses incurred in supporting his children and asserting claims on behalf of the children. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that only the parent with primary residential custody has standing to bring suit on behalf of a child for alleged injuries, but clarified that such dismissal is without prejudice to raising these issues before the trial court with jurisdiction over the child custody decree.
A non-custodial parent has no standing to bring suit on behalf of his children for alleged injuries; only the parent with primary residential custody possesses such standing. A non-custodial parent's claims regarding child support expenses should be addressed through a petition to modify support with the trial court having jurisdiction over the child custody decree. However, if the primary residential parent refuses to bring a bona fide claim on behalf of a child, the matter may be presented to the custody court, which can appoint a guardian ad litem to determine whether the claim should be pursued.
[1] A parent with primary residential custody has standing to bring a suit on behalf of a child for an alleged injury to the child.
[2] A non-custodial parent cannot pursue claims on behalf of a child if the primary residential parent refuses to do so, absent a court order.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 parent having primary residential custody is the one who has standing to bring a suit on behalf of the child for an alleged injury to the child”
Establishes the core holding regarding standing to sue on behalf of children in custody disputes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA.A. filed a complaint asserting his own claims for expenses allegedly incurred in furtherance of his child support duty and claims on behalf of his c…
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 Primary Residential Parent cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A.A. appeals the dismissal of his complaint with prejudice. We affirm as clarified below.
With regard to A.A.’s own claims, A.A. is already under a duty to provide support for his children. The complaint indicates that such expense as A.A. may have incurred was incurred in furtherance of the duty of support or as a volunteer. If A.A. believes that events have occurred which would justify an adjustment in his support obligation by reason of events transpiring in the residential household, then that matter should be called to the attention of the trial judge having jurisdiction over the child custody decree. That is the exclusive remedy for A.A. With respect to the claims on behalf of A.A.’s children, we are in agreement with two of our sister courts that the parent having primary residential custody is the one who has standing to bring a suit on behalf of the child for an alleged injury to the child. Lusker v. Guardianship of Lusker, 434 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Mills v. Phillips, 407 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The burden and stress of a civil action on behalf of the child will inevitably fall primarily on the primary residential parent, who will need to provide the primary support and guidance to the child. For that reason we follow the rule announced by the second and fourth districts.
In the event there is a bona fide claim which the primary residential parent refuses to bring, then that issue should be presented to the trial judge having jurisdiction over the child custody decree, who can assess the situation and, with the assistance of a guardian ad litem if necessary, determine whether the children have claims which should be pursued despite the objection of the primary residential parent. In the latter circumstance, the trial court can make a determination who should pursue such a claim.1 We therefore entirely agree with the trial court’s order dismissing the suit, but clarify that it is without prejudice to address the issues to the court having jurisdiction over child custody and support.
Affirmed as modified.
. Where, as here, there is an allegation of wrongdoing by a member of the household hav ing primary residential custody, it would be inappropriate, and create entirely too much potential for harassment and abuse, to permit A.A., the non-custodial parent, to pursue such claims. Assuming the trial court were satisfied that any claim should be pursued, an entirely neutral guardian ad litem should be employed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The Fla. Star v. B. J. F., 491 U.S. 524 (U.S. 1989)
- Lusker v. Guardianship OF Bena Christine Lusker, 434 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Mills v. Rohalier Phillips, 407 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- The Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 499 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)