CHARLES REYNOLDS AND ELLEN REYNOLDS, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
JAQUES ALDERMAN, AS GUARDIAN OF OPAL ALDERMAN, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's order regarding the custody of a minor child. The court found no abuse of judicial discretion in the award, which granted custody to the defendant in error while allowing the mother visitation rights.
No, the Circuit Judge did not abuse his judicial discretion or violate any provision or settled principle of law in awarding the custody of the minor child.
“As it does not appear that the Circuit Judge abused his judicial discretion or violated any provision or settled principle of law in awarding the custody of the minor child, and as further orders may be made in the premises by the Circuit Judge as the welfare of the child and the rights of the parties may require, the order appealed from is affirmed.”
This quote encapsulates the court's reasoning for affirming the lower court's decision, emphasizing the lack of judicial abuse and the potential for future modifications.
The Circuit Judge, in habeas corpus proceedings, awarded the care, custody, and control of a minor child, Opal Alderman, to the defendant in error, wh…
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 Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
[*40] Per Curiam.
—In habeas corpus proceedings the Circuit Judge awarded the care, custody and control of Opal Alderman, a minor grand-daughter to the defendant in error, according to Ellen Reynolds formerly Mrs. M. Bruce Alderman, the mother of the minor, the right to have the custody of the child at least once a year for six weeks, the child not to be taken beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Writ of error was allowed and taken.
As it does not appear that the Circuit Judge abused his judicial discretion or violated any provision or settled principle of law in awarding the custody of the minor child, and as further orders may be made in the premises by the Circuit Judge as the welfare of the child and the rights of the parties may require, the order appealed from is affirmed.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State ex rel. Charles B. Sparks v. Mrs. A. E. Reeves, 97 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1957)…proceedings involving the custody of minors of tender years, the Circuit Judge is accorded the privilege of exercising a broad judicial discretion in determining the ultimate question of the welfare of the children themselves. Reynolds v. Alderman, 72 Fla. 39, 72 So. 369; Culpepper v. Osteen, 153 Fla. 161, 13 So. 2d 911. While according to the trial Judge a broad judicial discretion in the matter we nevertheless cannot lose sight of the basic proposition that a parent has a natural God-given legal right…
-
Annice A. Justice v. VAN Eepoel, 132 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1961)…the years and our contact with the record as it has accumulated, leads us to conclude that the chancellor has not abused the sound judicial discretion which it was his to exercise in the first instance in a case of this nature. Reynolds v. Alderman, 72 Fla. 39, 72 So. 369; State ex rel. Weaver v. Hamans, 118 Fla. 230, 159 So. 31; Martens v. State, Fla.App., 100 So. 2d 440. Our own personal reactions at the appellate level are not the standards by which our judgment must be guided. The rule is that unless…
-
Petition of James L. Wall, Jr., 260 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on authority of Justice v. Van Eepoel, Fla.1961, 132 So. 2d 407. See also Reynolds v. Alderman, 72 Fla. 39, 72 So. 369; Witt v. Burford, 84 Fla. 201, 93 So. 186.…