CAROLINE S. HARRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
BRENT J. JOYNER, 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.
Caroline Harris, an unmarried mother with primary residential custody, appeals a paternity judgment that included a relocation restriction preventing either party from moving the child from Leon County without court approval. The court reversed, finding such restrictions premature when neither party has expressed intent to relocate and the trial court failed to make required findings.
The court reversed the relocation restriction as premature and unsupported by required findings. However, the trial court may condition the judgment to require parties to advise the court if either seeks to relocate from Leon County.
[1] A relocation restriction in a final judgment of paternity is premature when neither party has expressed an intention to relocate.
[2] A trial court must make specific findings to support a residential restriction on a party's relocation.
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“[W]e reverse that portion of the order that prohibits either party from removing the children from Dade County without prior court order or written agreement of the parties. The restriction is premature, as neither party has sought to relocate. Moreover, the trial court failed to make any of the findings required to support such a residential restriction.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that relocation restrictions are improper when neither party seeks to relocate and required findings are absent
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCaroline Harris and Brent Joyner had a child born out of wedlock. Harris was awarded primary residential custody with Joyner receiving visitation righ…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Caroline S. Harris, the mother of a child born out of wedlock, appeals a final judgment of paternity in which she was given primary residential custody of the parties’ child1 and appellee, the father, was awarded visitation and ordered to pay child support. She contends the trial court erred in placing a relocation restriction in the final judgment. We agree and reverse.
A fair reading of the language contained in the trial court’s final judgment indicates that neither of the parties has a present intention to move from the Leon County, Florida area. We find that resolution of this issue is controlled by the Third District Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Young v. Young, 698 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), rev. denied, 707 So. 2d 1128 (Fla.1998), a case decided after the trial court ruled in this matter. Therein, the Third District Court of Appeal stated:
[W]e reverse that portion of the order that prohibits either party from removing the children from Dade County without prior court order or written agreement of the parties. The restriction is premature, as' neither party has sought to relocate. Moreover, the trial court failed to make any of the findings required to support such a residential restriction. See Mize v. Mize, 621 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1993). Upon remand, the trial court shall strike that provision.
Id. at 315.
However, we add parenthetically that our opinion does not preclude the trial court from inserting a condition in the final judgment requiring the parties to advise the court if one or the other seeks to relocate from Leon County.
Accordingly, the cause is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BOOTH and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., and CARITHERS, HUGH A., Jr., Associate Judge, concur. . The 1997 legislature amended section 742.031, Florida Statutes, by adding subsection (2), which provides in pertinent part:
If a judgment of paternity contains no explicit award of custody, the establishment of a support obligation or of visitation rights in one parent shall be considered a judgment granting primary residential care and custody to the other parent without prejudice ...
Ch. 97-170, § 68, Laws of Fla.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bassett v. Saunders, 835 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…een the parties, the trial court may have anticipated future conflicts; however, the residency restriction is premature because neither party has sought to relocate, and there are not any findings to support such a restriction. See Harris v. Joyner, 732 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); see also Mize v. Mize, 621 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1993). On remand, the trial court should strike the residency restriction. We affirm as to the issues regarding make-up visitation and the calculation of child support, but reverse and…
Authorities Cited
- Mize v. Mize, 621 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1993)
- Young v. Young, 698 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)