JOHN F. DODGE, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
KAREN C. DODGE, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
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 consolidated appeals regarding child custody and attorney's fees. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of a custody change but granted increased visitation, finding trial courts have broad authority to address child welfare. The court also affirmed attorney's fees but remanded for a hearing on costs.
Yes, trial courts have broad authority to consider visitation as a component of child custody arrangements, even if a custody change is not granted. No, the blanket denial of costs was not sustainable without an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A trial court properly considering child custody is empowered to consider visitation as a necessary component of any custody arrangement, even if only a change in custody…
[2] Parties seeking a change in child custody should anticipate that the court may consider modifications to visitation arrangements.
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“Trial courts have broad authority to look after the rights of children.”
Establishes the broad power of trial courts in child welfare matters.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe mother sought a change in custody and attorney's fees. The trial court denied the custody change but granted increased visitation and attorney's f…
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 Change Of Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
These are consolidated appeals from orders entered upon the appellee-mother’s requests for a change of custody of the parties’ minor child and for attorney’s fees and costs.
The trial court denied the mother’s request for custody but granted her increased visitation rights. The appellant-father claims that the court lacked jurisdiction to change visitation terms where the only relief sought by the mother was a change in custody.
We disagree. Trial courts have broad authority to look after the rights of children. Ordinarily, a trial court that is properly considering the custody of a child is also empowered to consider visitation as a necessary component of any custody arrangement. As in this case, a trial court may determine that a change in custody is not warranted, but increased visitation with the noncustodial parent may be.
Hence, parties on notice that a change in custody is sought should also be on notice that the court may consider a change in the parties’ visitation arrangements. We also find there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s provisions for custody and visitation, as well as a provision for the father to provide child support to the mother when she has custody of the child.
The record reflects not only a need for such support, but also a substantial disparity in the abilities of the parties to provide financial support.
Finally, we affirm the award of attorney’s fees to the mother, but remand for an evidentiary hearing on the mother’s claim for costs. While granting substantial attorney’s fees, the trial court refused to grant any costs to the mother. However, the trial court found no ability on the part of the mother to pay fees and costs, and found a substantial ability on the part of the father. While the trial court obviously has authority to determine what costs were reasonable and necessary, we do not believe the blanket denial of the substantial claim for costs can be sustained by the record.
ANSTEAD, POLEN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. Cezar Trevino, 612 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…aternity did not ask for custody, but court awarded shared parental responsibility). When an award of relief is not sought by the pleadings, it is error to grant such relief. Freeman v. Freeman, 447 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). In Dodge v. Dodge, 578 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), we held that “[ordinarily, a trial court that is properly considering the custody of a child is also empowered to consider visitation as a necessary component of any custody arrangement.” Id. In other words, the broad necessaril…
-
Turner v. Turner, 695 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…s final point on appeal regarding the trial court’s modification of the relocation provision contained in the parties’ agreement as the issue was tried by consent and there is no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision. See Dodge v. Dodge, 578 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Therefore, as to the child support issue, we reverse and remand with directions to reinstate the child support award set by the final judgment of dissolution. The order appealed is otherwise affirmed. Affirmed in part, reversed…
-
George v. George, 600 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…also contends there was no proffer that such change was necessitated by a change in circumstances, or that it was ordered in the best interests of the children. The majority has per curiam affirmed as to this point, and I concur. In Dodge v. Dodge, 578 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), we wrote: The appellant father claims that the court lacked jurisdiction to change visitation terms where the only relief sought ... was a change in custody. We disagree. Trial courts have broad authority to look after the righ…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence