MATTHEW BILBO, APPELLANT,
v.
ALANE MARIE BILBO, 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.
Matthew Bilbo appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for visitation with his minor daughter on jurisdictional grounds. The appellate court reverses, holding that a circuit court has inherent jurisdiction to modify custody and visitation provisions in a dissolution decree without an express reservation of jurisdiction, and that all statutory requirements under the UCCJA are satisfied here.
A circuit court has inherent jurisdiction to modify a dissolution decree regarding custody and visitation of minor children regardless of whether the original decree expressly reserved such jurisdiction. Here, Brevard County circuit court clearly has jurisdiction because Florida originally rendered the dissolution decree, Florida is the child's home state, and all UCCJA requirements are satisfied.
[1] A circuit court's jurisdiction to modify a dissolution decree as to custody and visitation of minor children does not depend on an express reservation of jurisdiction in…
[2] A circuit court has inherent jurisdiction to control the welfare and act for the protection of minors within its territorial jurisdiction.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“a circuit court's jurisdiction to modify a dissolution decree as to custody and visitation of minor children does not depend on an express reservation of jurisdiction in the decree”
Establishes the core holding that inherent jurisdiction exists independent of express reservation
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' marriage was dissolved in 1985 by a final decree rendered in Brevard County, Florida that made no provision for child support or visitati…
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 Child Visitation cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Matthew Bilbo, the former husband, appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for modification, filed in November of 1995, in which he requested visitation be provided for him with his minor daughter, Nataasha. We reverse.
The parties’ marriage was dissolved in 1985, and the final decree made no provision for child support or visitation. At that time, Matthew did not know where his former wife and daughter were. The final decree was rendered in Brevard County, Florida. It did not in any way terminate Matthew’s parental rights to Nataasha.
In 1994, Matthew discovered that his former wife, Alane, and Nataasha were living in Brevard County. He filed a petition in Bre- vard County to obtain visitation, and Alane counterpetitioned for child support. Initially, the trial court granted Matthew’s request for limited visitation and counseling because of the long separation of parent from child. Subsequently, Alane moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the trial court granted the motion.
Apparently, the trial court determined it lacked jurisdiction because the initial judgment did not expressly reserve jurisdiction to modify the final judgment of dissolution as to visitation. However, a circuit court’s jurisdiction to modify a dissolution decree as to custody and visitation of minor children does not depend on an express reservation of jurisdiction in the decree. Cone v. Cone, 62 So. 2d 907 (Fla.1953). A circuit court has inherent jurisdiction to control the welfare and act for the protection of minors within its territorial jurisdiction although its power to modify a dissolution decree may turn on subject matter jurisdictional requirements set forth in the UCCJA. Id.; § 61.13(2)(b)(l); § 61.1308, Fla.Stat. (1995). None of those factors is missing in this ease since a Florida court originally rendered the dissolution decree, and Florida is the home state of this child. Further, venue is also proper in Brevard County. § 47.011, Fla.Stat.(1995).
We conclude that the circuit court for Bre-vard County clearly has jurisdiction to hear and determine Matthew’s petition for modification. Cone; Waters v. Waters, 578 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
REVERSE and REMAND.
DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
I.B. and D.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 876 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…also note that trial courts have inherent power when determining issues relating to children to consider the child’s best interests. See Department of Children & Family Services v. Interest of J.C., 847 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Bilbo v. Bilbo, 688 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Waters v. Waters, 578 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The trial court’s resolution of this case on separation of powers grounds may have been appropriate if, for example, the child was being cared for by a third party and neithe…
-
P.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 865 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…the express provisions of chapter 39 in providing for the safety and welfare of children. Circuit courts have inherent and continuing jurisdiction to protect children and that jurisdiction is not dependent on a chapter 39 action. See Bilbo v. Bilbo, 688 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (circuit court has inherent jurisdiction to control the welfare and act for the protection of minors within its territorial jurisdiction); Waters v. Waters, 578 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (circuit court has inherent jurisdicti…
-
Piljevic v. Jankovic (Fla. 2d DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Cone v. Cone, 62 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 1953)
- Waters v. Waters, 578 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)