IN RE THE GUARDIANSHIP OF J.L.C., A MINOR. IN RE THE GUARDIANSHIP OF J.A.C., A MINOR. JEFFREY C. CROUCH, APPELLANT,
v.
JUDITH L. RIHA, 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.
In this guardianship appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's order awarding temporary custody of two minor children to their maternal aunt, Judith Riha, pending resolution of the guardianship proceedings initiated after their father Jeffrey Crouch's arrest and subsequent release following dismissal of murder charges.
The court affirmed the temporary custody award, holding that while it had severe reservations about circuit court jurisdiction to determine parental rights against natural parents absent compliance with Chapter 39 or 63, the court properly exercised its inherent jurisdiction to protect the children during the pendency of guardianship proceedings where the guardian was properly appointed with the parent's consent. If permanent custody is later sought by the third party, it must proceed under Chapter 39 or 63.
[1] A trial court has inherent jurisdiction to enter orders to protect children and their property during the pendency of guardianship proceedings.
[2] A trial court may consider the fitness of a parent when determining the custody of a child during guardianship proceedings.
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“[W]e would have severe reservations as to whether there is any inherent jurisdiction in the circuit courts to entertain a child custody proceeding against natural parents absent compliance with chapter 39, or chapter 63, Florida. Statutes (1983).”
Establishes the court's concern about jurisdiction to determine parental rights in guardianship proceedings without statutory compliance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1987, after the children's mother was killed and their father was arrested and charged with her murder, the maternal aunt Judith Riha was appointed…
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 Inherent Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Chief Judge.
The appellant, Jeffrey C. Crouch, by this consolidated appeal, challenges two interlocutory orders awarding temporary custody of J.L.C., a minor, and J.A.C., a minor, to the appellee, Judith L. Riha. We affirm.
In 1987, pursuant to chapter 744, Florida Statutes (1985), the appellee, J.L.C. and J.A.C.’s maternal aunt, was appointed the children’s guardian after their mother was killed and the appellant, their father, was arrested and charged with her murder. The appellant consented to the appointment but did so only for the period he was in jail and also with the understanding it could be revoked at any time. When the charge against him was dismissed and he was released, the appellant revoked the consent and petitioned for the return of the girls and for termination of the guardianship. Prior to an evidentiary hearing concerning the termination or continuation of the guardianship, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing concerning the temporary custody of the girls and entered an order awarding temporary custody of the children to the appellee. This timely appeal followed.
The appellant concedes that the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties, but contends that his parental rights cannot be determined in a guardianship proceeding. We tend to agree. In McCaskill v. McCaskill, 477 So. 2d 36, 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), this court said: “[W]e would have severe reservations as to whether there is any inherent jurisdiction in the circuit courts to entertain a child custody proceeding against natural parents absent compliance with chapter 39, or chapter 63, Florida. Statutes (1983).” See also Padgett v. Pettis, 445 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); State v. M.T.S., 408 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
In this case, however, we do not have to decide that question because the court was not determining the parental rights of the appellant. The appellee, with the appellant’s consent, had been appointed guardian of the girls and they were properly in her custody. The appellant sought to terminate this guardianship and during the pendency of that matter, the court had the inherent jurisdiction to enter orders to protect the children and their property, Phillips v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 347 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), and if necessary to consider the fitness of the appellant, In re D.A. McW., 460 So. 2d 368 (Fla.1984).
In exercising its jurisdiction, the court decided that the children should remain in the custody of the appellee during the pendency of the proceedings. After the guardianship proceedings are terminated, if the appellee, a third party, desires to seek permanent custody of the children, thereby terminating the parental rights of the appellant, she will have to proceed under either chapter 39 or chapter 63.
We also find no reversible error committed by the trial court in its rulings concerning judicial notice.
Affirmed.
SCHEB and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of J.A.C. and J.L.C. v. Crouch, 634 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…her. In 1987, the Florida probate court appointed the Rihas as guardians of the children. In accordance with our prior opinion, the Rihas sought a determination of dependency and termination of parental rights. See In re the Guardianship of J.L.C., 567 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Although the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) has been represented at the hearings in these proceedings, HRS has never supervised the placement of the children. At the parties’ request, the trial court has n…
-
Nicole and Doreen Feil v. Pollock, 98 So. 3d 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…he trial court nonetheless awarded custody to Appellee. But neither party had invoked the jurisdiction of the trial court to request this award. Because parental rights cannot be determined in a guardianship proceeding, In re Guardianship of J.L.C., 567 So. 2d 21, 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), the trial court acted without jurisdiction in entering the custody order. As to guardianship, a trial court may award guardianship of a minor to a third party while a natural parent is living only when the third party can sh…
Authorities Cited
- In re Guardianship OF D.A.McW. v. McWHITE, 460 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1984)
- Phillips v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 347 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Padgett v. Pettis, 445 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- State v. M.T.S., 408 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Ophelia and Gary McCASKILL v. Vera and Toma McCASKILL, 477 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)