CYNTHIA LIPSITT, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH LIPSITT, 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 custody/visitation appeal, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's determination that Florida retained continuing jurisdiction over a custody matter despite the former wife's relocation with the child to Pennsylvania. The court held that the original dissolution state does not lose jurisdiction merely because the custodial parent moves away, provided the non-custodial parent maintains contact with the child.
Yes. Florida retained continuing jurisdiction over the custody and visitation matter because the non-custodial parent remained in Florida, the child maintained contact with him through visitation, and all litigation between the parties took place in Florida.
[1] A Florida court's jurisdiction to modify its own custody orders continues even if children reside outside Florida, provided they maintain significant contacts with the st…
[2] Jurisdiction to modify a custody order should be addressed to the court that rendered the original decree, even if another state has become the child's home state.
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“The trial court was correct in determining that Florida had continuing jurisdiction over this custody/visitation matter.”
Establishes the central holding that the original decree state retains jurisdiction despite relocation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA Florida dissolution decree awarded custody of a minor child to the former wife with visitation rights for the former husband who remained in Florida…
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 Home State cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a consolidated, expedited appeal from the trial court’s orders denying the former wife’s motion to dismiss and granting the former husband’s motion to enforce visitation rights. The trial court was correct in determining that Florida had continuing jurisdiction over this custody/visitation matter. Yurgel v. Yurgel, 572 So. 2d 1327 (Fla.1990).
While the Florida dissolution decree made provision for the former wife’s removal of the child to Pennsylvania, it also provided for continuing contact between the minor child and the former husband, who resided in Florida. The child visited the former husband in Florida. See O’Con-nor v. O’Connor, 447 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). All litigation between the parties took place in Florida, and the Florida court properly determined that it did not lose jurisdiction to enforce the visitation schedule.
The instant case fits squarely within the comment by Professor Bodenheimer, the reporter for the committee which prepared the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, regarding the retention of jurisdiction by the state entering the initial decree:
A typical example is the case of the couple who are divorced in state A, their matrimonial home state, and whose children are awarded to the wife, subject to visitation rights of the husband. Wife and children move to state B, with or without permission of the court to remove the children. State A has continuing jurisdiction and the courts in state B may not hear the wife’s petition to make her the sole custodian, eliminate visitation rights, or make any other modification of the decree, even though state B has in the meantime become the “home state” under section 3. The jurisdiction of state A continues and is exclusive as long as the husband lives in state A unless he loses contact with the children, for example, by not using his visitation privileges for three years. (Bodenheimer, Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (1969) 22 Vanderbilt L.Rev. 1207, 1237.)
Reeve v. Reeve, 391 So. 2d 789, 791 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
Therefore we affirm the trial court’s order enforcing the visitation schedule.
AFFIRMED.
DELL, GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rohlfs v. Rohlfs, 666 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…. 2d 694 (Ind. 4th Ct.App.1995). Although Florida’s continuing jurisdiction is usually based on the non-custodial parent’s Florida residence and the child’s visits to Florida when another state has become the child’s home state, Lipsitt v. Lipsitt, 608 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Rothman, 599 So. 2d at 261; Steward v. Steward, 588 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Annotation, Child Custody: When Does State That Issued Previous Custody Determination Have Continuing Jurisdiction Under Uniform Child Custody J…
-
Mann v. Mann, 798 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…had to bestow legal effect upon that continuing jurisdiction which operates beyond the state borders. Id.See also Reeve v. Reeve, 391 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); O’Connor v. O’Connor, 447 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). In Lipsitt v. Lipsitt, 608 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), the court held that jurisdiction was proper in Florida. Although the Florida judgment of dissolution provided that the wife could remove the child to Pennsylvania, it also provided for visitation with the father in Florida. Id.…
-
Hollins v. State, 231 So. 3d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…ender sentence of life with a fifteen-year mandatory minimum. We affirmed the convictions, but reversed the upward departure sentence for attempted first degree murder, and remanded with directions to impose a guidelines sentence. Hollins v. State, 608 So. 2d 546 (Fía. 4th DCA 1992). On remand, the trial court sentenced the defendant to forty years for attempted first degree murder, consecutive to the habitual offender sentence of life for kidnapping. We affirmed that sentence. Hollins v. State, 636 So. 2d…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rona E. Yurgel v. Yurgel, 572 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 1990)
- Reeve v. Reeve, 391 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Mitchell v. Robbins, 447 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- O'Connor v. O'Connor, 447 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)