RICHARD ALLEN DOBSON, APPELLANT,
v.
JULIA HAYDEN SAMSON, 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 custodial father sought to relocate his child to a distant location for employment advancement, but the trial court denied the request, finding that the child's interest in maintaining frequent contact with the non-custodial mother outweighed the father's career and financial benefits. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that relocation causing substantial impairment of shared parental responsibilities and visitation is not permissible even when the custodial parent presents a substitute visitation plan.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of relocation, holding that the child's interest in maintaining frequent and close continuous contact with the non-custodial parent and effective shared parental responsibility outweighs the custodial parent's desire for personal career advancement and benefits to the new family unit.
[1] A party seeking to remove a child from the state in violation of a final judgment must demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances and that the removal is in the ch…
[2] A final judgment incorporating a stipulation prohibiting the removal of a minor child from the state without prior written consent or court order places the burden on the…
Previewing 2 of 6 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 father received an offer of employment in a distant location that would greatly enhance his career and his immediate salary and petitioned the trial court to permit him to relocate the child to the distant location. The relocation of the child would greatly impair meaningful sharing of parental responsibilities by the non-custodial parent and frustrate frequent visitation between the noncustodial parent and the child.”
States the factual circumstances and the core legal issue regarding impairment of shared parental responsibility.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties' marriage was dissolved and they shared parental responsibility for four years, with the father having primary residential custody. The pa…
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 Child Relocation cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
The marriage of the parties was dissolved and the parties for four years participated in “shared parental responsibility” with the father having primary residential responsibility. The parties live sufficiently close to the original marital domicile and each other that the mother could, and has, exercised her right to frequent and close visitation with the child. The father received an offer of employment in a distant location that would greatly enhance his career and his immediate salary and petitioned the trial court to permit him to relocate the child to the distant location. The relocation of the child would greatly impair meaningful sharing of parental responsibilities by the non-custodial parent and frustrate frequent visitation between the noncustodial parent and the child. The father presented expert testimony to the effect that after dissolution a child establishes á “new family unit” and, in effect, that what is in the best interest of the “new family unit” is also in the best interest of the child.1 The father also proposed a substitute visitation program.2 The trial judge found that under the facts and circumstances the desire and benefits to the father and his new family and the child were outweighed by the benefit to the child of maintaining frequent and close continuous contact with the mother and the mother’s right to continued frequent visitation and effective shared parental responsibility. The father appeals and cites the dissent in Mast v. Reed, 578 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
We agree with the trial judge and affirm on the authority of Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Conroy v. Conroy, 585 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), rev. denied, 595 So. 2d 556 (Fla.1992); Baldwin v. Baldwin, 576 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Cole v. Cole, 530 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), Jones v. Vrba, 513 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Elebash v. Elebash, 450 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Giachetti v. Giachetti, 416 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); and the majority opinion in Mast v. Reed, 578 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
GOSHORN, C.J., and DIAMANTIS, J., concur. . This argument is a twist of the famous statement that "anything that is good for General Motors is good for the United States”. The innuendo of the argument is actually that by becoming part of the "new family unit", consisting of the custodial parent and new spouse, etc., the child’s need for contact with its natural noncustodial parent is lessened. This argument ignores the fact that the non-custodial spouse has the right to enjoy frequent contact and association with the child and the right to share some parental obligations and that effective sharing of parental responsibilities requires an opportunity to observe the child and to exercise independent judgment about its condition and needs rather than depend on the custodial parent to recognize the child’s needs and to initiate communication about them.
. In response to this argument in cases, where both parents are equally fit, some trial judges have been known to apply the old “turn about is fair play” country maxim, and ask the custodial parent: “If custody were changed, would you be content and happy with the proposed substitute visitation plan as your visitation rights?’’
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dobson v. Samson, 623 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1993)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Dobson v. Samson, 598 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), based on conflict with Mize v. Mize, 621 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1993). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We quash Dobson. The marriage of Richard Dobson and Julia Samson was dissolved in 1987. Richard was given prim…
-
Urban v. Urban, 600 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED on the authority of Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Dobson v. Samson, 598 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Conroy v. Conroy, 585 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), rev. den., 595 So. 2d 556 (Fla.1992); Baldwin v. Baldwin, 576 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Cole v. Cole, 530 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Jones v. Vrba, 513 So. 2d 1080…
-
Dobson v. Samson, 627 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…PER CURIAM. We consider the present case after the Florida Supreme Court quashed our decision in Dobson v. Samson, 598 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), and remanded for reconsideration in light of Mize v. Mize, 621 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1993). Dobson v. Samson, 623 So. 2d 473 (Fla.1993). Because the trial court did not have the benefit of Mize when it made its findings of fact and co…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Quest v. Joseph, 416 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Cole v. Cole, 530 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- In re the Marriage of Eric R. Jones v. Vrba, 513 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Elebash v. Elebash, 450 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Mast v. Reed, 578 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Harmon v. State, 576 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Grady Jude Conroy v. Conroy, 585 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)