JULIE M. PACKARD, APPELLANT,
v.
BRIAN S. PACKARD, 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.
In this custody dispute following dissolution of marriage, the trial court awarded primary residential custody to the father based on his ability to provide a "more traditional family environment," citing the mother's lesbian relationship. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding the trial court's reasoning was insufficiently explained and potentially based solely on sexual orientation, which violates established precedent requiring evidence of actual harm to the child.
The court reversed and remanded because the trial court's reliance on an unexplained "traditional family environment" factor prevented meaningful appellate review and potentially violated the principle established in Maradie that sexual conduct may be considered only if it has a direct impact on the child's welfare with an evidentiary basis for harm.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by basing a custody decision solely on an unexplained factor, such as a "traditional family environment."
[2] Appellate review of a custody determination is frustrated when the trial court relies on an unexplained factor, necessitating remand for clarification.
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“the trial court may consider a parent's sexual conduct in determining the parent's moral fitness under section 61.13(3)(f), but that in such consideration "the trial court should focus on whether the parent's behavior has a direct impact on the welfare of the child."”
Establishes the legal standard for considering sexual conduct in custody determinations, requiring focus on actual impact to the child rather than the conduct itself.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJulie and Brian Packard divorced, with two minor daughters involved. Julie is a lesbian who was living with a woman with whom the parties had been inv…
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 Primary Residential Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Julie M. Packard appeals a final judgment of dissolution in which the trial court granted primary residential custody of the parties’ two daughters to her former husband, appel-lee, Brian S. Packard. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In the final judgment, the trial court ruled:
[t]hat the best interests of the minor children will be served with granting shared parental responsibility to the parties, "with primary physical residency ... to Petitioner/Husband, as the Petitioner/Husband will provide a more traditional family environment for the children.
Appellant is a lesbian who had been living with a woman with whom the parties had been involved in a menage a trois during their marriage. At the time of the final hearing, appellee was living with his girlfriend, her children and the parties’ daughters.
Appellant contends that, because the appellee’s living arrangements may also be viewed as “untraditional,” by basing its custody decision solely on the finding that a more “traditional family environment” would be provided by appellee, the trial court was in reality basing its decision solely on the appellant’s sexual orientation. As a result, appellant argues, because the record contains no evidence that her sexual orientation had harmed or posed any risk of harm to the parties’ children, under Maradie v. Maradie, 680 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), the trial court abused its discretion in awarding custody on the sole ground that she is a lesbian.
We find that our ability to address the parties arguments and to undertake meaningful appellate review here is frustrated by the trial court’s sole reliance on an unexplained factor. The trial court does not explain what is meant by its reliance on “traditional family environment.” We elect not to guess about the trial court’s intended definition of a “traditional family environment” in the context of the circumstances shown by this record and the factors mandated by section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1995). Because we cannot review the trial court’s ruling without resorting to speculation, and to allow for meaningful appellate review, we reverse and remand for clarification. West American Ins. Co. v. Chateau La Mer II Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 622 So. 2d 1105, 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
Further, we note that the order on appeal was entered prior to our opinion in Maradie. In Maradie, we explained that the trial court may consider a parent’s sexual conduct in determining the parent’s moral fitness under section 61.13(3)(f), but that in such consideration “the trial court should focus on whether the parent’s behavior has a direct impact on the welfare of the child.” Maradie, 680 So. 2d at 542, citing Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1975).
Thus, the trial court’s primary consideration should be on what conduct is involved and whether the conduct has had or is reasonably likely to have an adverse impact on the child. “[A] connection between the actions of the parent and harm to the child requires an evidentiary basis and cannot be assumed.” Maradie, 680 So. 2d at 543. On remand, these principles may provide guidance for the trial court’s consideration of these parties’ moral fitness under section 61.13(3)(f). On remand the trial court may take additional evidence, in its discretion. REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
JOANOS, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jacoby v. Jacoby, 763 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…ls shared their own bedroom, and that they had a computer complete with children’s games. If the court’s “obvious” preference was based on the father’s heterosexual relationship, it was akin to the custody award to the father in Packard v. Packard, 697 So. 2d 1292, 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), based solely on the fact that he lived in a “more traditional family environment.” As did the First District in Packard, we reject such a determination when no evidence showed harm to the children resulting from the “nontr…
-
Willis v. Willis, 818 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…v. Jacoby, 763 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). In determining a party’s moral fitness for purposes of custody, the trial court should focus on whether the parent’s conduct has had or is reasonably likely to have an adverse impact. Packard v. Packard, 697 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Although one parent has committed adultery, it may be in the child’s best interest for that parent to receive custody. Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1975). Adultery may or may not have a direct bearing on the welfare of a…
-
Hughes v. Hughes, 955 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…orted the trial court’s conclusion that awarding custody to the former wife was in the child’s best interest); Burger v. Burger, 862 So. 2d 828, 832-33 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Jacoby v. Jacoby, 763 So. 2d 410, 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Packard v. Packard, 697 So. 2d 1292, 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (noting that, although a parent’s sexual conduct may be considered in determining “moral fitness” under the statute, the focus should be on whether the parental behavior had a direct impact on the child); Maradie v. Maradie…
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
- Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1975)
- Maradie v. Maradie, 680 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- W. Am. Ins. Co. v. Chateau LA MER II Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 622 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)