JAMES WARD, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES O. HYSELL, LINDA K. HYSELL AND CONNIE WARD, APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
The father, James Ward, appeals from a final order awarding permanent custody of the minor child to the maternal grandparents pursuant to a custody agreement executed by both parents. He contends that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter this order.
We affirm, without making a determination as to the validity of the custody agreement, finding that the trial court has inherent jurisdiction to determine issues of custody. Richardson v. Richardson, 766 So. 2d 1036, 1043 (Fla.2000)(“[I]n all custody cases, trial courts have broad continuing jurisdiction to ensure the protection of children within the court’s jurisdiction and over matters related to the well-being of a child.”); Cone v. Cone, 62 So. 2d 907 (Fla.1953), overruled on other grounds by, Richardson, 766 So. 2d at 1043; Waters v. Waters, 578 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Golstein v. Golstein, 442 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
However, because the issue raised by the father regarding the validity of the custody agreement was not fully litigated below, this affirmance is without prejudice for the father to re-raise this issue during the currently active dissolution proceedings.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ward v. Ward, 874 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…766 So. 2d 1036 (Fla.2000). This Court subsequently affirmed the order denying the father’s motion to vacate without prejudice for the father to again raise issues relating to the grandparents’ custody in the dissolution proceeding. Ward v. Hysell, 777 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Thereafter, the father joined the grandparents in the dissolution action and amended his answer and counter-petition to request both nullification of the custody agreement' and modification of custody. He also sought unsupervise…
-
Harrier v. Warmke, 876 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…reversing dismissal of grandparents’ petition seeking custody of grandchild, with parents’ consent, because petition was not filed in context of a dissolution action under chapter 61 or a dependency action under chapter 39). See also Ward v. Hysell, 777 So. 2d 1206, 1206-07 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (rejecting father’s argument that trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter order awarding permanent custody of minor child to grandparents pursuant to custody agreement executed by parents on ground that tr…
Authorities Cited
- Cone v. Cone, 62 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 1953)
- Richardson v. Richardson, 766 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 2000)
- Golstein v. Golstein, 442 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Waters v. Waters, 578 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)