ANGELIA SULLIVAN, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT L. SULLIVAN, 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.
A mother appealed a custody award favoring the father, arguing she should have preferential consideration as the child's mother. The court affirmed the award, holding that the statutory abolition of the 'tender years' doctrine requires courts to evaluate all relevant statutory factors without giving any preference based on parental gender or the child's age.
The 'tender years' doctrine has been statutorily abolished, and courts cannot give any preference to the mother based solely on the child's age. Courts must evaluate all relevant statutory factors affecting the child's welfare and interests. The trial court's custody determination, reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, was proper based on the record.
[1] The "tender years" doctrine, which presumes mothers are better suited for child custody, has been statutorily abolished.
[2] Courts may not grant custody preference to a mother solely based on the child's age.
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“the "tender years" doctrine has been statutorily abolished, and courts may not give any preference in determining custody to the mother based solely on the age of the child.”
Establishes that Florida law no longer permits preferential custody treatment for mothers, eliminating the traditional common law doctrine.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were formerly married and had a minor child together. A final hearing was held at which evidence relevant to statutory custody factors was…
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 Tender Years Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PARIENTE, Judge.
This is a pro se appeal by the mother, the former wife, from Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage which awarded primary residential custody of the parties’ minor child to the father, the former husband. Appellant contests this award claiming that she should have been given custody of the minor child as she is his mother. However, the “tender years” doctrine has been statutorily abolished, and courts may not give any preference in determining custody to the mother based solely on the age of the child. See § 61.13(2)(b)1, Fla. Stat. (1993); Cherradi v. Lavoie, 662 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Instead, courts must evaluate all relevant statutory factors affecting the welfare and interests of the child. See § 61.13(3), Fla.Stat. (1993). The trial court’s determination of custody made after evaluation of these factors is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
In this case, there was a final hearing by the trial court at which evidence relevant to each of the statutory factors was presented and considered by the court. Based on the record before us, it appears that the trial court appropriately evaluated the relevant statutory factors in reaching its decision. The record on appeal contains only a brief excerpt of the court’s oral pronouncement of its decision to award custody of the minor child to the father and does not contain a transcript of the evidence taken at that hearing. While we are not unsympathetic to the plight of appellant who asserts she cannot afford a transcript of the entire hearing, in the absence of a record demonstrating reversible error, we must conclude that the trial court acted properly. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979).
We therefore affirm the final judgment.
GLICKSTEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Adair v. Adair, 720 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…is well settled that a trial court has broad discretion in child custody matters; its decision in that regard is reviewed for a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. See Ford v. Ford, 700 So. 2d 191, 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Sullivan v. Sullivan, 668 So. 2d 329, 329-30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Collier v. Collier, 384 So. 2d 697, 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Despite a conflict in the evidence, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s custody decision unless there is no substantial competent evidence to…
-
Bartolotta v. Bartolotta, 687 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…t she cannot afford to file transcripts in this case. Ordinarily, the absence of transcripts in factually intense cases, such as child custody cases, requires us to affirm. Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979); Sullivan v. Sullivan, 668 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Here, however, because the Mother’s arguments focus only upon the legal insufficiencies of the Father’s renewed petition and the trial court’s findings, consideration of this ease on its merits is proper. Hirsch v. Hirsch, 642 S…
-
Miller v. Miller, 842 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…2d 357, 358-359 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). It is well settled that a trial court has broad discretion in child custody matters, and its decision in that regard is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Adair, 720 So. 2d at 317; see also Sullivan v. Sullivan, 668 So. 2d 329, 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Where reasonable persons could differ as to the trial court’s ruling, there is no abuse of discretion. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). “Despite a conflict in the evidence, an appellate court will not…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Soulaymane Cherradi v. Christiane Lavoie, 662 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)