NANCY S. HARRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
GARY HARRIS, 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.
The appellate court affirmed an emergency custody order transferring primary residential responsibility to the father, finding the record inadequate for meaningful review due to the mother's failure to obtain a proper evidentiary hearing with notice and court reporter.
An emergency custody order must be reviewed on an adequate record, and absent such a record, the trial court's decision receives affirmation based on the presumption of correctness.
[1] An appellate court cannot meaningfully review an emergency custody order when the record lacks a transcript of an evidentiary hearing and the appellant has moved to strik…
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 intelligenceA former wife appealed an emergency order transferring primary residential responsibility for her minor son to her former husband, which was entered w…
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 Psychological Evaluation cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
In this case the former wife appeals an emergency order transferring primary residential responsibility for her minor son to her former husband. The order was entered without notice and apparently was based on an oral report presented to the trial court by a guardian ad litem in the case, which report was based on a psychological evaluation of the child. We have no record of the proceedings before the trial court.
We are perplexed by the filing of the instant appeal wherein we have no basis to approve or to disapprove the action of the trial court. Indeed, the appellant has vehemently moved to strike the psychological report relied upon by the guardian ad litem, and any reference thereto, from consideration by this court — leaving us with only the representations of the parties in their respective briefs. Why did not counsel for the former wife simply proceed before the trial court to set the disputed emergency order (entered on April 27,1998) for an expeditious evidentiary hearing with notice and a court reporter? That would have provided a proper basis for review by this court.
As it is, we can only note our frustration and affirm the action of the trial court, which arrives here with a presumption of correctness — and with little else.
AFFIRMED.
HARRIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.