PAMELA J. ROSS, APPELLANT,
v.
WALTER L. ROSS, III, 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.
Pamela Ross appealed a trial court's award of primary residential custody of the parties' minor child to her ex-husband, Walter Ross, arguing denial of due process and abuse of discretion. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the custody award, finding adequate notice and sufficient evidence supported the trial court's decision.
The trial court's award of primary residential custody to appellee did not result in denial of fundamental due process because the joint pretrial stipulation provided adequate notice that custody would be an issue at trial. The trial court had sufficient evidence to support its custody determination, and issues regarding the need for psychological evaluations were not properly raised before the trial court and thus could not be considered on appeal.
[1] A joint pretrial stipulation listing custody as an issue to be tried, along with witness lists addressing parental fitness, can provide sufficient notice of a party's int…
[2] A party's failure to seek a continuance and presentation of evidence in opposition to a custody claim demonstrates that the party had notice and an opportunity to be hear…
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“The record does not support appellant's argument that she lacked notice of the appellee's intent to seek custody of the minor child, nor does it support her contention that she was denied fundamental due process.”
Establishes that the joint pretrial stipulation provided sufficient notice of the custody issue and satisfied due process requirements.
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 were in a family law dispute regarding custody of their minor child. A joint pretrial stipulation filed by both parties explicitly listed …
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 Parental Fitness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant contends that the trial court’s award of primary residential custody to appellee constituted a denial of fundamental due process. Appellant also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in its award of primary residential custody to appellee. We affirm.
Appellant argues that appellee failed to seek custody of the parties’ minor child by way of an express pleading. However, the parties filed a joint pretrial stipulation which listed among the issues to be tried:
Whether child’s residence should be restricted to reasonable geographic area in South Florida.
In the event wife insists upon removing the child’s residence from Palm Beach County, Florida, then whether the best interests of the child would be served by being placed in the permanent residential care of the husband.
The stipulation also contained the parties’ witness lists. Appellant listed witnesses who would testify as to appellee’s “drug use and fitness as a parent.”
The record does not support appellant’s argument that she lacked notice of the appellee’s intent to seek custody of the minor child, nor does it support her contention that she was denied fundamental due process. Appellant’s counsel failed to seek a continuance, and the record shows that appellant presented evidence in opposition to the appellee’s claim for custody. Based on the record before us, we hold that the trial court’s award of primary residential custody to appellee did not result in denial of fundamental due process to appellant. See Hemraj v. Hemraj, 620 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
Appellant also argues that the trial court should have had the benefit of psychological or other professional evaluations as to the fitness of the parties to be the residential custodial parents. However, appellant’s failure to raise these issues before the trial court precludes us from considering them for the first time on appeal. See Dober v. Worrell, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla.1981). Finally, the record shows that the trial court had sufficient evidence before it to support its determination of the custody issue.
AFFIRMED.
DELL and STEVENSON, JJ., and MUIR, CELESTE H., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Chirogianis v. Anderson, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 1981)
- Hemraj v. Goordial Hemraj, 620 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)