MARIA E. PEREIRA, PETITIONER/APPELLANT,
v.
IBRAHIM SHANTI, RESPONDENT/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.
Maria Pereira appealed a trial court order granting temporary custody of her two-year-old son to the father, Ibrahim Shanti, after she breached an agreement to return to Jordan following a Florida vacation. The court affirmed, holding that Florida lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and that the father had a superior right to temporary custody based on the mother's breach of the return agreement.
Florida lacked jurisdiction to decide the custody issue under section 61.1308, Florida Statutes (the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act). The father has a superior right to temporary custody because the mother breached her agreement to return to Jordan with the child, and Jordan is the child's home state and the appropriate jurisdiction for custody proceedings.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to decide a child custody issue under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act when the child's home state is another jurisdiction.
[2] A trial court's award of temporary child custody to a parent for the purpose of returning the child to their home state may be construed as an order granting a writ of ha…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 correctly decided that it had no jurisdiction to decide the custody issue under section 61.1308, Florida Statutes (1999), the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act”
Establishes that Florida lacks jurisdiction over the custody dispute because Jordan is the child's home state.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parents married in 1995 and moved to Jordan, where their son was born in 1997. In July 1999, the mother brought the child to Florida for vacation …
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 Habeas Corpus For Child Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The wife appeals a non-final order granting temporary custody to the husband; she also petitions for a writ of prohibition. We deny the petition as moot and affirm the order on appeal.
Maria Pereira, the mother, and Ibrahim Shanti, the father, were married in 1995 in Miami and then moved to Jordan. Their son, now two, was born in Jordan.
In July 1999, the mother and child came to Florida for a vacation; the mother had • return tickets for both herself and the child and an agreement with the father to return to Jordan on that date. Two days before her scheduled return, the mother decided to remain here in Florida and filed an emergency petition for custody of the minor child.
The trial court granted temporary custody to the mother pending a full evidentiary hearing. After the father learned that the mother intended to remain in the United States with their son, he obtained a Jordanian divorce.
In December 1999, the father traveled to Miami and filed a verified petition for custody. He alleged that a custody action was pending in Jordan and sought an order that allowed him to return to Jordan with the child. After an eight-hour hearing, the trial court declined to exercise jurisdiction and awarded the father temporary custody for the purpose of returning the child to Jordan, his home state.
The trial court correctly decided that it had no jurisdiction to decide the custody issue under section 61.1308, Florida Statutes (1999), the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. We construe the trial court’s award of temporary child custody to the father as an order granting a writ of habeas corpus. The father has a superior right to temporary custody of the child because the mother breached an agreement to return to Jordan with the child after her visit to Miami. See Brown v. Tan, 395 So. 2d 1249, 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (after determination that it had no jurisdiction to determine custody, trial court correctly authorized the return of the child to the father where the mother failed to return the child as agreed); see also Crane v. Hayes, 253 So. 2d 435, 440 (Fla.1971) (“habeas corpus is a proper proceeding to obtain custody of a child wrongfully withheld”).
The trial court’s order directing the mother to deliver physical custody of the child to the father for the return to Jordan is affirmed. Jordan, the child’s home state, is the appropriate jurisdiction for custody proceedings. The stay of proceedings is hereby vacated, and the father is to take immediate custody of the child.
The Petition for Writ of Prohibition is denied as moot; order on appeal AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tobkin v. State, 777 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). As previously discussed, this case does not involve the situation where the court is obligated to assume jurisdiction because of its inherent responsibility for the custody and welfare of children. See Pereira v. Shanti, 751 So. 2d 1291, 1291-92 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Brown v. Tan, 395 So. 2d 1249, 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). In conclusion, we hold that the trial court in the present case is without jurisdiction to proceed in either the dissolution or the injunction actions to the exten…1 / 2
-
Hana Sargi v. Ali Hernandez, 939 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…in an emergency to protect the child because the child, or a sibling or parent of the child, is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse, to award temporary custody); §§ 61.1302-61.1348, Fla. Stat. (2005). Relying on Pereira v. Shanti, 751 So. 2d 1291, 1291-92 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), the court nonetheless concluded that it enjoyed jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus and ordered Sargi to immediately deliver custody of the [*181] children to Hernandez. It enjoyed no such authority. “There is…
Authorities Cited
- Crane v. Hayes, 253 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1971)
- Vivienne Brown and Arthur Brown v. TAN, 395 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)