CATHERINE GRIFFITH, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD GRIFFITH, 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.
Catherine Griffith appealed a nonfinal order denying her motion to enforce a final custody judgment after she voluntarily relinquished custody of her three children to her ex-husband. The court affirmed, holding that a temporary custody order does not require a showing of substantial change in circumstances and does not constitute a final determination of custody.
The trial court was not required to find a substantial change in circumstances because the order appealed was only a nonfinal, temporary custody order, not a final determination of custody. A temporary custody order is designed to determine the best placement for children pending final custody determination.
[1] A temporary custody order is a nonfinal order that does not require a finding of substantial change in circumstances to modify the final custody order.
[2] In determining temporary custody, a court aims to minimize disruption to a child's life while considering the child's best interests.
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“In a temporary custody order, the trial court determines the best place for the children until the court makes the final decision regarding custody.”
Establishes the foundational distinction between temporary and final custody orders and the court's role in temporary determinations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court initially awarded Ms. Griffith primary residential custody of three minor children. Ms. Griffith voluntarily relinquished custody to M…
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 Temporary Child Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
Catherine Griffith appeals the nonfinal order denying her motion to enforce the final judgment of dissolution regarding the custody of her three minor children.
We affirm because the trial court’s order is only a temporary custody order. Ms. Griffith’s argument that the trial court was required to make a finding that there had been a substantial change in circumstances before modifying the final order of custody is not applicable here because the order appealed is a nonfinal order placing temporary custody of the children with the noncustodial parent. See Potter v. Haffner, 561 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
The trial court was not making a final determination of custody. In a temporary custody order, the trial court determines the best place for the children until the court makes the final decision regarding custody. The courts generally try to cause the least amount of disruption in the child’s life when making this determination, while still taking into consideration the best interest of that child. See Palmore v. Sidoti, 472 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
In this case, after the court awarded Ms. Griffith primary residential custody of the three children, she voluntarily relinquished custody to Mr. Griffith. The record indicates that the children were with Mr. Griffith for at least five months before Mr. Griffith filed a supplemental petition for modification of the final judgment seeking primary residential custody of the children and child support from Ms. Griffith. Thereafter, Ms. Griffith filed her motion to enforce the final judgment of dissolution regarding custody.
Ms. Griffith is correct in arguing that a temporary change in custody is not grounds for modification of custody.
Accordingly, affirmance of this nonfinal order is not an expression of who ultimately is entitled to custody.
Additionally, while the courts generally prefer to keep siblings together, there are exceptions for when the children are old enough to express a preference or when it is in their best interest to be separated. See Reinhart v. Reinhart, 291 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Pollak v. Pollak, 196 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). In this case, the daughter expressed a desire to live with her mother and the sons preferred to live with their father.
In light of the one son’s threat against his mother, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion in this matter.
Affirmed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and LUTEN, CLAIRE K., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gillard S. Glover v. Glover, 820 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…RMED IN PART AND REMANDED. COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . We recognize that while courts generally prefer to keep siblings- together, there are exceptions when it is in the best interests of the children to be separated. See Griffith v. Griffith, 627 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); see also Reinhart v. Reinhart, 291 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).…
-
D.M.J. v. A.J.T., 190 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…’s bond with her siblings. There is an absence of any findings' or indications that the court considered the child’s ■ relationship with her siblings. See § 61.13(3)(t); Munson v. Munson, 702 So. 2d 583, 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Griffith v. Griffith, 627 So. 2d 527, 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). There is also no indication that the court considered evidence of “[t]he demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to determine, consider, and act upon the needs of the child as opposed to the needs or desires of…
-
Mahmoud Ismail Ayyash v. Ayyash, 700 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…v. Sanchez, 575 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). . Schweinberg v. Click, 627 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). . See Jones v. Jones, 674 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Nicholson v. Nicholson, 671 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Griffith v. Griffith, 627 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Murphy v. Murphy, 621 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). . See Duchesneau v. Duchesneau, 692 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Williams v. Williams, 676 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Allan v. Allan, 666 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Guerrero v. State, 291 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Jerri Pollak v. Pollak, 196 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Palmore v. Sidoti, 472 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Norris Rogers v. State, 561 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Potter v. Haffner, 561 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)