KAREN PETTIGREW STERN, F/K/A KAREN PETTIGREW REY, APPELLANT,
v.
NEIL VEE REY, 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.
The court held that the father failed to prove a substantial change in circumstances to justify modifying custody and that the mother's relocation issue was moot.
Following dissolution, the mother sought to relocate with the child to New York, and the father sought primary custody. The trial court denied the mot…
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
[*146] PER CURIAM.
In this post-dissolution modification proceeding, the mother appeals the trial court’s order denying her petition to allow the parties’ son to be removed from Hills-borough County to New York and granting the father’s counterpetition, thereby awarding him primary residential custody of the son. She raises two points on appeal. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The mother’s first point on appeal is that the father failed to carry his burden of proving the occurrence of a substantial change of circumstances that would justify modifying the final judgment of dissolution of marriage to make the father primary residential parent. We agree. Although the father presented evidence that the mother has been somewhat less than a sterling parent since entry of the final judgment of dissolution, we conclude that his evidence was insufficient to prove a substantial change of circumstances warranting modification. See Jablon v. Jablon, 579 So. 2d 902, 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
The mother’s second point is that the trial court erred in not allowing her to remove the parties’ son from Hillsborough County to New York State, where her new husband received a job promotion. However, at oral argument, her counsel disclosed that her new husband and she have since moved from New York back to Florida, in Orange County. In light of this development, we decline to address her argument at this time. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., PATTERSON, J., and RONDOLINO, ANTHONY, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bartolotta v. Bartolotta, 687 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…compared the Mother’s parenting skills against the Father’s parenting skills. This type of comparison is legally insufficient to support a modification order because it does not create a basis for a substantial change in circumstances. Stern v. Rey, 616 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Bryant v. Meredith, 610 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Thus, the trial court’s findings regarding the Mother’s fitness as a parent are irrelevant and legally insufficient to justify modification. Holmes v. Greene, 649 So. 2d 302…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Cary Arnold, 579 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)