CAROL RICHARDS RAY, APPELLANT,
v.
DOUGLAS WARREN RAY, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's modification of custody awarding primary residential care to the former husband, finding the husband failed to prove a substantial change of circumstances, and remanded for the trial court to apply the Mize relocation test to the former wife's petition.
A former husband seeking modification of custody must prove a substantial change of circumstances and that the child's best interests would be served by the change, and when a former wife seeks relocation, the trial court must apply the six-part Mize test.
[1] A former spouse seeking modification of custody must prove both a substantial change of circumstances since the final judgment and that the modification serves the child'…
[2] When a former spouse seeks permission to relocate with a minor child, the trial court must apply the six-part test established in Mize v. …
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA former wife sought to relocate to Kansas with the minor child and filed a petition for modification of visitation and relocation. The trial court gr…
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 Petition To Relocate cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The former wife challenges the trial court’s order granting the former husband’s petition for modification of final judgment of dissolution of marriage, which awarded primary residential care of the minor child to the former husband. Primary residential care had previously been with the former wife. The trial court based its ruling on the former wife’s desire to move to Kansas with the child. We agree that the former husband did not meet his burden of proving that a substantial change of circumstances had occurred since the final judgment and that the child’s best interests would be served by a change of custody. We reverse.
The former wife also filed a petition for modification requesting that the trial court modify the visitation provisions of the final judgment and grant permission for her and the minor child to reside in Kansas. While the trial court’s order also purported to deny the wife’s petition for modification it did not address the six part test for relocation mandated by Mize v. Mize, 621 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1993). We remand with instructions to the trial court to consider the wife’s petition and make the findings required by Mize.
Reversed and remanded.
PARKER, A.C.J., BLUE, J., and ADAMS, DURAND J., Associate Judge, concur.