MARIA MONES, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRIS HAL MONES, 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.
Court vacated trial court's elimination of the presumption favoring a primary custodial parent's relocation decision, holding that Florida law entitles a custodial parent demonstrating good faith to a rebuttable presumption in favor of relocation.
A primary custodial parent who demonstrates good faith is entitled to a rebuttable presumption in favor of relocation, and a trial court cannot eliminate this presumption.
[1] A primary custodial parent who demonstrates good faith is entitled to a rebuttable presumption in favor of relocation, and trial courts are bound by stare decisis to appl…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“upon a demonstration of good faith as described in Mize of a custodial parent seeking to relocate, that parent is entitled to a presumption in favor of his request. However, that presumption is rebuttable.”
Russenberger v. Russenberger, 669 So. 2d 1044, 1047 (Fla.1996), establishing the standard for custodial parent relocation presumptions.
Maria Mones, the former wife and primary custodial parent, appealed a dissolution of marriage judgment that purported to eliminate the presumption fav…
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 Family Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Maria Mones, the former wife and primary custodial parent, appeals from a Final Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage that, in part, provides in paragraphs four and five: “The current status of the law creates a presumption in favor of a primary custodial parent’s decision to relocate.
Pursuant to the facts of this case, neither party should be entitled to a presumption on the issue of a possible future relocation....” We vacate those portions of paragraphs four and five of the trial court order that purport to eliminate this presumption. See Russenberger v. Russenberger, 669 So. 2d 1044, 1047 (Fla.1996) (holding “that upon a demonstration of good faith as described in Mize [v. Mize, 621 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1993) ] of a custodial parent seeking to relocate, that parent is entitled to a presumption in favor of his request_ However, that presumption is rebuttable_”).
The trial court’s attempt to hold contrary to Russenberger is not permissible. See Putnam County Sch. Bd. v. Debose, 667 So. 2d 447, 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“Under the doctrine of stare decisis, lower courts are bound to adhere to the rulings of higher courts when considering similar issues even though the lower court might believe the law should be otherwise.”).
The above cited provisions of paragraphs four and five are vacated; the judgment is otherwise affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mize v. Mize, 621 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1993)
- Russenberger v. Russenberger, 669 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1996)
- Thompson v. State, 667 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Putnam Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Gallagher Bassett Servs. v. Debose, 667 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)