MARK LAWRENCE STEINER, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
LYNETTE ROMANO-STEINER, N/K/A LYNETTE CAMPBELL, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
This case addresses whether a trial court must find a substantial change of circumstances before modifying custody under Florida Statute 61.13(4)(c) when the custodial parent violates visitation rights. The appellate court held that no substantial change of circumstances is required when the court finds a violation of visitation rights and determines that custody transfer serves the child's best interests.
The trial court erred in applying the substantial change of circumstances requirement. When a noncustodial parent proceeds under section 61.13(4)(c) and the court finds a violation of visitation rights has occurred, no substantial change of circumstances must be proved; instead, the court should proceed directly to determine whether transferring custody serves the child's best interests.
[1] A party seeking a change of custody under section 61.13(4)(c), Florida Statutes, is not required to show a substantial change of circumstances when the court finds that t…
[2] A trial court's finding that a custodial parent was unduly obstructive of the noncustodial parent's relationship with the child warrants further consideration of a custod…
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“no substantial change of circumstances is necessary to be proved where a violation of visitation rights is found by the court to have occurred and the court further finds that the best interests of the child lie in transferring custody to the other parent”
Establishes the core legal holding that eliminates the substantial change requirement for section 61.13(4)(c) cases involving proven visitation violations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe father sought to modify custody, alleging that the mother (custodial parent) had repeatedly obstructed his visitation rights and caused difficulti…
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 Visitation Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
The primary issue on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in its application of section 61.13(4)(c), Florida Statutes in this action to modify child custody when the reason for such modification is the custodial parent’s alleged refusal to honor the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights. We find that the trial court erred in determining that one who seeks a change of custody under section 61.13(4)(c) must first show a substantial change of circumstances.
Concerning the father’s allegations that the mother had caused tremendous difficulties in his visitations, obstructing his relationship with the child and alienating him from the child, the trial court found: “I must acknowledge that there was — his case was not without merit, that I found her to be unduly obstructive of him and his relationship with the child_ [TJhere is no question about the fact that she created a lot of problems that didn’t need to be in this case.” Even with this finding, the court failed to consider whether a transfer of custody was warranted, stating as the reason that the father failed to “reach the evidentiary threshold of a substantial change of circumstances.”
We held in Williams v. Williams, 676 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), a decision not available to the trial court at the time of its ruling in this case, that when a noncustodial parent proceeds under section 61.13(4)(c), no substantial change of circumstances is necessary to be proved where a violation of visitation rights is found by the court to have occurred and the court further finds that the best interests of the child lie in transferring custody to the other parent. Since the court .found that a violation had occurred in this case, it should have proceeded to determine the best interests of the child in relation to a change of custody.
We reverse the trial court’s judgment which refused to consider a change of custody and remand for further action consistent with this opinion. If the court needs additional evidence on the issue concerning the child’s best interests, then it may reopen the proceedings. We also reverse the court’s previous award of attorney’s fees since it appears that no evidence was adduced at trial to justify such award. Although the mother alleged in her complaint that she had employed counsel and needed assistance in paying counsel fees, she neither requested such fees in her complaint nor did she repeat those allegations in her testimony or make such a request at trial. Further, the parties did not stipulate that the issue of attorneys fees should be severed from the trial of the cause. See McIntyre v. McIntyre, 380 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wyckoff v. Wyckoff, 820 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…13(4)(c)(5), Florida Statutes (2000), the court could order a change in custody if it was in the best interests of the minor children because the Former Wife refused to honor his visitation rights without proper cause. See Steiner v. Romano-Steiner, 687 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Williams v. Williams, 676 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). In Steiner and Williams, the Fifth District held that a noncustodial parent proceeding under section 61.13(4)(c)(5) need not prove a substantial change in circumstances t…
-
Morales v. Morales, 915 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…quired only to prove that a violation of visitation rights has occurred and that the best interests of the child support the change in custody. See, e.g., [*249] Compton v. Compton, 701 So. 2d 110, 112 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Steiner v. Romano-Steiner, 687 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Williams v. Williams, 676 So. 2d 493, 493-94 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); see also § 61.13(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (2004). However, that has now changed. After the trial court ruled in this case, in Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So. 2d 928 (Fla.2005…
-
Teller v. Richert, 744 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…ith a noncustodial parent’s visitation right has been found to be sufficient to warrant a change of custody if the change is in the [*1232] child’s best interest. See Compton v. Compton, 701 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Steiner v. Romano-Steiner, 687 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). We find the evidence presented by the father to be sufficient to overcome the mother’s motion for directed verdict. For this reason, we reverse and remand this cause with directions that the lower court determine the custody is…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Andino v. State, 676 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- McINTYRE v. McINTYRE, 380 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)