CATHERINE M. PATE, APPELLANT,
v.
CARMINE PATE, 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 the trial court's order directing the mother to return the parties' minor child to Florida pending the custody action.
The father filed a petition for temporary child custody after the mother relocated to Ohio with their infant son. The trial court conducted a hearing …
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 Temporary Child Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Catherine Pate (mother) appeals the non-final order entered by the trial court directing her to return the parties’ minor child to Florida pending disposition of the parties’ custody action. We affirm.1
Carmine Pate (father) filed a petition for temporary child custody, child support, and visitation unconnected with a dissolution of the marriage. See § 61.10, Fla. Stat. (1999). The petition alleged, among other things, that the mother had left the marital home in Florida and relocated to Ohio with the parties’ infant son. The father requested that the trial court issue an order directing the mother to return the child to Florida. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and thereaf ter directed the mother to return the child within thirty days. The mother timely appealed the order and also petitioned this court for a stay pending disposition of the appeal. We granted the stay.
The mother contends that the trial court abused its discretion in directing her to return the child to Florida. We disagree. Our review of the evidence presented below reveals no such abuse. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court and dissolve the stay entered by this court. We hold that the order directing the child to be returned to Florida shall take effect immediately, and that no motion for rehearing will be entertained in this matter. The clerk is directed to issue mandate forthwith.
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W., PLEUS, and PALMER JJ., concur. . This court possesses jurisdiction to review this ruling pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amie Essex v. Davis, 116 So. 3d 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…hreshold issue, Christopher Davis (“the father”) argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the Order on Father’s Motion for Return of Child to Jurisdiction because the order is not an appeal-able, non-final order. However, in Pate v. Pate, 777 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 6th DCA 2001), the court treated a similar order as appeal-able pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(3)(C). Although the order at issue does not specify that custody must change to the father, the effect of the order is to change the daughter’s residence…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)