ADRIENNE E. RICHARDSON, APPELLANT,
v.
RAYMOND E. RICHARDSON AND CHARLENE RICHARDSON, 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.
A Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's order transferring primary custody of a child from the mother to the paternal grandparents, holding that the statute authorizing such a transfer based on a best interest standard violates the constitutional right to familial privacy without requiring proof of substantial harm to the child.
Section 61.13(7) is facially unconstitutional because it violates Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution by permitting evaluation of a grandparent's custody request solely upon a best interest standard without requiring proof of a substantial threat of significant and demonstrable harm to the child.
[1] A statute authorizing a court to grant grandparents the same standing as parents to seek custody based solely on a child's best interest violates a parent's constitutiona…
[2] The Florida Constitution protects a parent's right to raise a child without unwarranted governmental interference.
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 article I, section 23, privacy provision of the Florida Constitution encompasses a parent's right to raise a child without unwarranted governmental interference”
Establishes the fundamental constitutional principle protecting parental rights at issue in the case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAdrienne Richardson was the custodial parent of her four-year-old child from a dissolved marriage. After Richardson and the child traveled out of stat…
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 Facial Unconstitutionality cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, J.
The appellant challenges an order modifying a child custody provision in a preceding marital dissolution decree. Primary residential custody of the appellant’s minor child was transferred from the appellant to the appellee grandparents, based on the trial court’s application of a best interest standard pursuant to section 61.13(7), Florida Statutes. We conclude that insofar as the statute authorizes a best interest •standard in this context, it violates article I, section 23, of the Florida Constitution.
The appellant is the mother of a child who was four years old when the appellant’s marriage to the child’s father was dissolved. The dissolution order placed the custody and primary residence of the child with the appellant, although the child stayed with the paternal grandparents at various times during the next several years. After the appellant and the child traveled out of state to visit at the home of the appellant’s parents, and the appellant informed the paternal grandparents that she intended to remain at that location with the child, the child’s father petitioned for modification in Florida. The father subsequently disavowed any interest in obtaining custody of the child, but the grandparents intervened in the Florida proceeding and sought custody.
Section 61.13(7), Fla. Stat. provides that: In any case where the child is actually residing with a grandparent in a stable relationship, whether the court has awarded custody to the grandparent or not, the court may recognize the grandparents as having the same standing as parents for evaluating what custody arrangements are in the best interest of the child.
However, the appellant strenuously argued below that to merely apply a best interest standard in evaluating the grandparents’ request for custody would be an unconstitutional infringement on her right of familial privacy.
The Florida Supreme Court has addressed essentially the same issue in the context of grandparental visitation. In Von Eiff v. Azicri, 720 So. 2d 510 (Fla.1998), and Beagle v. Beagle, 678 So. 2d 1271 (Fla.1996), the court indicated that the article I, section 23, privacy provision of the Florida Constitution encompasses a parent’s right to raise a child without unwarranted governmental interference. Further indicating that this zone of familial privacy may not be invaded in the absence of a compelling state interest, Von Eiff and-Beagle determined that a grandparental visitation statute violated article I, section 23, by invoking a best interest standard without requiring proof of a substantial threat of significant and demonstrable harm. Section 61.13(7) suffers from the same defect, in permitting evaluation of the grandparents’ custody request solely upon a best interest standard. Like the statute in Von Eiff and Beagle, section 61.13(7) thus violates article I, section 23, and is thereby facially unconstitutional.
The appealed order is reversed and the case is remanded.
JOANOS and WEBSTER, JJ„ CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Richardson v. Richardson, 766 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 2000)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Richardson v. Richardson, 734 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), a decision of the district court declaring invalid a state statute. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Consistent with our recent rulings on similar issues, we affirm the district court decision and hold that s…
-
In the Interest of: N.Z.B. and M.T.B. v. M.C., 779 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…rt to set a nonjury trial on her petition. Trial was set for February 18, 1999. Three days before the addendum to the agreement was filed in the circuit court, the First District held section 61.13(7) unconstitutional. See Richardson v. Richardson, 734 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), aff'd, 766 So. 2d 1036 (Fla.2000). Richardson was binding precedent upon the circuit court because no conflicting decision had been issued by this district or any other district. See Chapman v. Pinellas County, 423 So. 2d 578 (F…1 / 3
-
Ward v. Ward, 874 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…of the child pursuant to a verified child custody agreement. The father answered and counter-petitioned claiming that the custody agreement with the wife’s parents was void; that he was fit to have custody; and, relying on Richardson v. Richardson, 734 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), which declared section 61.13(7) unconstitutional, that the grandparents did not rightfully enjoy custody. The father also filed a motion in the grandparents’ custody proceeding seeking to vacate the custody judgment. That motio…
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
- Beagle v. Beagle, 678 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1996)
- von Eiff v. Leonor Azicri and Roberto Azicri, 720 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1998)