PETER C. MCNAUGHTON, AND HUBERT MCNAUGHTON AND VIRGINIA MCNAUGHTON, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT DOERR AND CHERI MCGLINCHEY DOERR, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's custody award to the mother and its reservation of jurisdiction over grandparental visitation rights, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's approach.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in reserving jurisdiction to award grandparental visitation rights rather than deciding the issue immediately, where the father's residence in the grandparents' home facilitated visitation.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by reserving jurisdiction to award grandparental visitation rights in the future rather than deciding the issue in the initial…
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“to be in the child's best interest”
The court cautioned that future grandparent visitation motions must consider section 61.13(2)(b)2.c. and award visitation if deemed in the child's best interest.
A custody dispute arose between parents regarding their minor child. The paternal grandparents sought visitation rights, but the trial court found tha…
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 Grandparent Visitation Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
We affirm the final judgment and the amendments to the final judgment granting the mother custody of the minor child without further comment except in regards to the issue of grandparental visitation rights. That issue was not directly addressed by the trial court in its final judgment, and in its “Amendments to Final Judgment” the court merely reserved jurisdiction to award grandparents’ visitation rights to the paternal grandparents upon motion and notice. The transcript of the hearing on appellant’s motion for rehearing shows that the trial court did not award grandparent visitation rights in this case because the father not only lived in the same vicinity as the paternal grandparents, but, in fact, lived in the grandparents’ home, which facilitated visitation between the paternal grandparents and the minor child.
However, it was appellants’ concern that in the future, circumstances might preclude the grandparents from relitigat-ing their visitation rights and therefore requested some mention in the final order that they were entitled to visitation rights.
Accordingly, the trial court accommodated them by reserving jurisdiction to award visitation rights in the future.
We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s resolution on that issue but would caution the court that in the future should such motion in fact again be filed, it must consider section 61.13(2)(b)2.c., and the provision for awarding grandparent visitation rights if it is deemed by the court “to be in the child’s best interest.” See Wishart v. Bates, 531 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1988).
AFFIRMED.
ERYIN and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.