BARBARA FLANNERY, F/K/A BARBARA CROWE, APPELLANT,
v.
DAN CROWE, A/K/A BOYCE DAN CROWE, 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 a lower court's order denying a former wife's request to relocate with her child and denying her attorney's fees. The court found the trial court properly considered statutory factors and that the former wife's violation of a prior order justified the denial of fees.
No, the trial court did not err. The court properly considered the statutory factors for relocation, and the former wife's violation of a court order provided a basis for denying attorney's fees.
[1] A statutory provision abolishing a prior judicial presumption regarding relocation with a child requires the trial court to consider only the statutory factors, including…
[2] A trial court's determination regarding a child's best interests in a relocation case will be affirmed if supported by sufficient, competent evidence.
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 court found that, even though Former Wife’s new husband was transferred by his employer to Sebring, any substitute visitation would be inadequate “to foster the same sort of continuing meaningful relationship between the child and the Former Husband that both of them now enjoy,” and concluded that the child’s best interests would not be served by moving.”
This quote explains the trial court's reasoning for denying the relocation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former wife sought to relocate with the parties' minor child due to her new husband's job transfer. The trial court denied the relocation, finding…
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 Best Interests Of The Child cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
Former Wife, Barbara Flannery, timely appeals from an order on Former Husband, Dan Crowe’s petition for modification of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage which prohibited her, as primary residential custodial parent, from relocating within the state with the parties’ minor child and which denied her attorney’s fees and costs. The court found that, even though Former Wife’s new husband was transferred by his employer to Sebring, any substitute visitation would be inadequate “to foster the same sort of continuing meaningful relationship between the child and the Former Husband that both of them now enjoy,” and concluded that the child’s best interests would not be served by moving. It thereupon denied Former Wife’s request to relocate with the child, and made the parties bear their own attorney’s fees and costs.
Former Wife argues that, under Mize v. Mize, 621 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1993), there was a presumption in favor of her relocating with the child.
Section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1997), however, specifically abolished the Mize presumption. As such, the trial court was bound only by the statutory factors in section 61.13(2)(d), including the child’s best interests, the likelihood of Former Wife’s compliance with any substitute visitation arrangements, the adequacy of the substitute visitation, and the costs of transportation. § 61.13(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (1997). Since the record shows that the trial .court considered these factors, and there is sufficient, competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings in this regard, we affirm. We also affirm the court’s denial of attorney’s fees and costs to Former Wife.
The record shows that Former Wife violated the court order by bringing the child to Sebring prior to the final hearing. Although Former Husband earns significantly more than Former Wife, her violation of this order may have factored into the court’s decision to deny the award. See Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla.1997).
AFFIRMED.
FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Flint v. Fortson, 744 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…olled this case, there would have been a presumption in favor of allowing Flint’s relocation, since she was the primary residential parent. However, the legislature’s passage of section 61.13(2)(d) eliminated this presumption. See Flannery v. Crowe, 720 So. 2d 308, 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Hardwick v. Hardwick, 710 So. 2d 124, 125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The effect of the statute is to remove from the relocation equation all bias in favor of the primary residential parent. The statute imposes an intensely fact s…
-
Dorta-Duque v. Marines Dorta-Duque, 791 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…ctors listed in section 61.13(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1997). See Gray v. Martin, 730 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Flint v. Fortson, 744 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Gerov v. Holter, 731 So. 2d 152, 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Flannery v. Crowe, 720 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Borchard v. Borchard, 730 So. 2d 748, 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Based on the evidence presented, the trial court determined that the quality of life for both [*1150] the mother and the minor child would be likely to improve, as th…
-
Muniz v. Muniz, 789 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…and those stated in previous decisions on the subject which the statute mirrors. See § 61.13(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2000); Flint v. Forbson, 744 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Borchard v. Borchard, 730 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Flannery v. Crowe, 720 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Willey v. Willey, 683 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Grube v. Grabe, 680 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Jones v. Jones, 633 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), review denied, 639 So. 2d 978 (Fla.1994); see generally, Young v. Hec…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997)
- Mize v. Mize, 621 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1993)