SARA A. CLARKE, APPELLANT,
v.
PETER E. CLARKE, 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 appeals an order awarding temporary custody of both her biological child and her non-biological child from a prior relationship to the father, along with exclusive possession of the marital home. The court reverses, holding that a parent has a fundamental legal right to custody of minor children unless clear and convincing evidence demonstrates detriment to the child's welfare, and the evidence here was insufficient to meet that burden.
The court reversed the custody award for Irma, holding that a parent has a fundamental legal right to custody and companionship of minor children unless clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that such custody will be detrimental to the child's welfare. The evidence here fell short of meeting this high standard.
[1] A parent has a legal right to the custody and companionship of their minor children, which can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that such custody would b…
[2] A court cannot award custody of a child to a non-parent over a fit parent without clear and convincing evidence of detriment to the child.
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“It is well settled that a parent has a legal right to enjoy the custody and companionship of her or his minor children, unless clear and convincing evidence shows that such custody will be detrimental to the child's welfare.”
Establishes the fundamental legal standard that parental rights to custody cannot be overridden absent clear and convincing evidence of detriment to the child.
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 married, with the wife bringing three daughters from a previous marriage, including minor Irma who was never adopted by the husband. The p…
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 Detriment To The Child cases and more on FLexlaw
FLETCHER, Judge.
A mother appeals an order awarding temporary custody of her child not of the marriage and a child of the marriage to her husband, as well as awarding him exclusive possession of the marital home. For the reasons stated below, we reverse.
When the parties became married to each other the wife brought to the relationship three daughters from a previous marriage, one of whom, Irma, was still a minor. Subsequently, the parties had a child, Angela, born of the marriage. Irma was not adopted by the husband. Ultimately, the parties found themselves in a marital dissolution and child custody contest, in which the general master assigned to the case recommended that custody of both Angela and Irma be awarded to the husband. The general master concluded that awarding custody of Irma to the husband, even though he was neither the natural nor adoptive father of Irma, would be in the child’s best interest “because of the bonding already existing between the Husband and Irma; and because of the dysfunctional relationship between Irma and the Wife.” Neither the general master nor the trial court concluded that the existing conflict rendered the wife unfit as a parent. (Interim Report of General Master at 1-2).
The trial court ratified and adopted the findings and recommendations of the general master, adding only that it was not making a permanent custody determination regarding Irma at the time but merely determining her temporary place of residence.
It is well settled that a parent has a legal right to enjoy the custody and companionship of her or his minor children, unless clear and convincing evidence shows that such custody will be detrimental to the child’s welfare. In re Guardianship of D.A.McW., 460 So. 2d 368 (Fla.1984); State ex rel. Sparks v. Reeves, 97 So. 2d 18 (Fla.1957); Calle v. Calle, 625 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Webb v. Webb, 546 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 553 So. 2d 1168 (Fla.1989); Alderman v. Alderman, 484 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Johnson v. Richardson, 434 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
The evidence presented in this case falls short of the required dear and convincing showing of detriment to Irma. We, therefore, reverse the order below, with di reetions to return immediate custody of Irma to the wife,1 and for expedited reconsideration of the custody of Angela and possession of the marital home in light of the change in Irma’s custody. If possible, an expedited final hearing should be held in the cause.
. This order is effective immediately, without regard to the filing or disposition of any motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State ex rel. Charles B. Sparks v. Mrs. A. E. Reeves, 97 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1957)
- In re Guardianship OF D.A.McW. v. McWHITE, 460 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1984)
- Webb v. Webb, 546 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Hattie M. Johnson v. Richardson, 434 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Doyle R. Alderman v. Alderman, 484 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Calle v. Noris Calle, 625 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)