RICHARD ALLEN DOBSON, PETITIONER,
v.
JULIA HAYDEN SAMSON, RESPONDENT
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The court held that the prior precedent disfavoring removal was superseded by a new standard in Mize. The court quashed the prior decision and remanded for reconsideration.
Following a dissolution of marriage, the father sought to relocate with the parties' minor child for a better job opportunity. The mother petitioned t…
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 Parental Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
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 primary physical residence of the couple’s minor child, Alexandra, age two, and Julia was given shared parental responsibility and liberal visitation (every Wednesday, every other weekend, four weeks during the summer, and alternate holidays and holiday pei'iods), which she exercised. Richard, who worked as a computer systems analyst in the Orlando area, sought in 1991 to relocate to Iowa, after he was offered a position there as a nuclear engineer, which would involve an immediate $8,000 salary increase, raising his yearly pay from $42,000 to $50,000. Julia petitioned to block removal of the child.1
The trial court granted Julia’s petition to amend the original decree to restrict Richard from removing the child from the central Florida area, and the district court affirmed, citing its own precedent disfavoring removal. We granted review, pending resolution of a similar claim in Mize, which we have since decided. We quash Dobson and remand for reconsideration in light of Mize.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, grimes, kogan and HARDING, JJ., concur. . Both Richard and Julia have married new partners and have stepchildren.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tremblay v. Tremblay, 638 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…sent a significant change. It means that where the relocating parent is acting in good faith, permission to relocate should generally be granted; i.e., granting relocation becomes the proverbial rule, rather than the exception. See Dobson v. Samson, 623 So. 2d 473 (Fla.1993). We therefore reverse and remand the issue of whether Christopher can move to Massachusetts for reconsideration under Mize. We affirm the judgment in all other respects. ANSTEAD and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Dobson v. Samson, 627 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…IAM. 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 conclusions of law, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with Mize. REVERSED and REMA…
Authorities Cited
- Mize v. Mize, 621 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1993)
- Dobson v. Samson, 598 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)