IOLANDA CARPENTER, APPELLANT,
v.
LISA MARIE BERGE, 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.
The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's modification of child custody, holding that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard. The court erroneously applied Chapter 751 (temporary custody statute) instead of Chapter 61 (permanent custody statute), and therefore incorrectly required only that the mother be a fit parent rather than demonstrating a substantial change in circumstances.
The trial court erred by applying Chapter 751 to a permanent custody modification. Modification of permanent child custody requires showing both a substantial change in circumstances since entry of the original order and that the child's welfare would be promoted by modification, not merely that the parent is fit.
[1] Chapter 751 of the Florida Statutes, concerning temporary custody of minor children by extended family, does not apply to a modification of a permanent child custody arra…
[2] A permanent child custody arrangement, established by a joint petition and final judgment, is governed by Chapter 61 of the Florida Statutes.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 provisions of Chapter 751 by their own terms apply to a temporary custody setting.”
Establishes the crucial distinction that Chapter 751 governs temporary custody only, not the permanent custody arrangement at issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe natural mother, father, and grandmother jointly petitioned for custody in October 1993, and the trial court awarded permanent custody to the grand…
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 Permanent Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
This appeal presents the question of whether the proper legal standard was applied to a modification of child custody action brought by Berge, the natural mother, against Carpenter, the child’s grandmother. The trial court applied the provisions of Chapter 751, Florida Statutes, to this proceeding and ruled that the mother merely had to show she was a fit parent in order to obtain a transfer of custody from the grandmother to herself.
The record reflects that on October 26, 1993, the child’s natural mother, the natural father and grandmother jointly petitioned the trial court for an adjudication of child custody and support. The petition contained a joint stipulation for custody requesting that the court give temporary and permanent custody of the child to Carpenter, with whom the child had been living. A final judgment of custody and support giving Carpenter custody of the child was entered on November 12,1993.
Berge filed a petition for modification in September, 1995, seeking return of the child. The trial court ruled that the provisions of Chapter 751, Florida Statutes, entitled “Temporary Custody of Minor Children By Extended Family” applied to this modification action and that Berge merely had to show she was a fit parent in order to obtain a transfer of custody. Following a hearing the court ruled that Berge carried her burden and ordered a transfer of custody. We reverse. The provisions of Chapter 751 by their own terms apply to a temporary custody setting. The petition and joint stipulation for custody and support, filed on October 26, 1993, and the November 12, 1993 final judgment entered pursuant thereto, when read in pari materia, establish that a permanent custody arrangement in behalf of the grandmother was adjudicated. It was error to apply the provisions of Chapter 751 to this case.
Rather, the parties here, in jointly petitioning on October 26, 1993 for a court adjudication of custody and support, invoked the provisions of Chapter 61, Florida Statutes. Chapter 61 has recognized since May 15, 1993, that grandparental custody may be awarded in certain situations. See § 61.13(7), Fla.Stat.1 See generally Russo v. Burgos, 675 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Indeed, section 61.13(7) is significant because when it is properly invoked, it affords the grandparents the same standing as a natural parent for evaluating what custody arrangements are in the best interest of the child. S.G. v. G.G., 666 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
The trial court erred in applying Chapter 751 and in ruling that because the mother was a fit parent, a transfer of custody from the grandmother to her was required. Rather, modification of permanent child custody may be ordered only upon showing of a substantial change in circumstances since entry of the original order and that the welfare of the child would be promoted by a modification of custody. Ackerson v. Murphy, 622 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Stricklin v. Stricklin, 383 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Because an erroneous legal standard was applied below, the cause is remanded for reconsideration using the proper standard.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HARRIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . Section 61.13(7) provides:
In any case where the child is actually residing with a grandparent in a stable relationship, whether the court has awarded custody to the grandparent or not, the court may recognize the grandparents as having the same standing as parents for evaluating what custody arrangements are in the best interest of the child.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Richardson v. Richardson, 766 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 2000)…resided in a stable relationship for the better part of his life, may be recognized as having the same standing as appellant "for evaluating what custody arrangements are in the best interest of the child.” Id. at 205; see also Carpenter v. Berge, 686 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). S.G. v. G.G., however, did not depend on constitutional principles and was decided before this Court’s decisions in Beagle and Von Eiff. . Appellant’s reliance on Padgett v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 577 S…
-
Graham Marquis Greene v. Suhor, 783 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…e did not consider the best interests of the child. We acknowledge that a party seeking to modify custody must prove a substantial and material change in circumstances. Newsom v. Newsom, 759 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Carpenter v. [*292] Berge, 686 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Miller v. Miller, 671 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). However, we conclude that in this case such a showing by the father was not necessary or required. In 1997, Judge Wood ordered the parties to have rotating custody until Sha…
-
Bateman v. Johnson, 818 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…n able to better provide for certain educational or religious needs, the father was entitled to custody of his children absent a showing of unfitness or detriment. Id. at 489. Additionally, the case at bar is distinguishable from Carpenter v. Berge, 686 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), where a [*572] father sought a modification of custody after the grandmother had been awarded permanent custody. Here, although Morgan’s primary physical residence was with Mrs. Bateman, both parents retained their parental rig…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stricklin v. Stricklin, 383 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- S.G. v. G.G., 666 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Ackerson v. Murphy, 622 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Anne Marie Russo and Peter Russo v. Burgos, 675 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)