TERESA M. GOODMON, APPELLANT,
v.
GLENN B. GOODMON, 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.
Teresa Goodmon appealed an order changing primary residential custody of her two minor children to their father, Glenn Goodmon, eight months after the parties' dissolution. The appellate court reversed, finding that the father failed to meet the extraordinary burden required to modify a custody order in the postdissolution context.
The father did not meet the extraordinary burden required for a postdissolution custody modification. Although the trial court found the mother to be a "wonderful mother" and that the children would not suffer detriment if custody remained with her, it nonetheless changed custody to the father, which constituted error.
[1] A party seeking a postdissolution change of primary residential custody bears the extraordinary burden of proving a substantial change in circumstances since the original…
[2] A trial court errs in changing primary residential custody when it finds that the children would not suffer detriment if custody remained with the current custodian.
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 father had an extraordinary burden to change custody in this postdissolution setting.”
Establishes the legal standard applicable to postdissolution custody modifications, placing a high burden on the party seeking change.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were separated for more than nine years before their marriage was dissolved on December 15, 1998. Pursuant to the marital settlement agree…
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 Substantial Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Teresa M. Goodmon appeals an order changing primary residential custody of the parties’ two minor children to their father, Glenn B. Goodmon. We reverse because the father did not meet the extraordinary burden necessary to support a postdissolution change of custody.
The parties were separated for more than nine years prior to their dissolution. During this time, the mother was the primary residential custodian of the children. The parties’ marriage was dissolved on December 15, 1998, and pursuant to a marital settlement agreement, the mother was designated as the primary residential custodian. Eight months after the dissolution of the parties’ marriage, the father filed a petition seeking a change in primary residential custody.
The father had an extraordinary burden to change custody in this postdissolution setting. See Chant v. Chant, 725 So. 2d 445, 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). The father was required to prove that a substantial change in the circumstances of the parties had occurred since the original award of custody and that the failure to change custody would be detrimental to the children’s overall best interests. See Gibbs v. Gibbs, 686 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Fuxan v. Seaholm, 685 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Here, the trial court specifically found that the children would not suffer detriment if primary residential custody were to remain with their mother. In fact, the trial court found the mother to have been a “wonderful mother.” Therefore, the trial court erred in changing custody to the father. We note that the trial court conducted an in camera interview with the children pursuant to the parties’ agreement. It was agreed that the matters discussed would remain confidential. We recognize that parties may agree to such an in camera interview under appropriate circumstances. However, if such an interview is not transcribed and the trial court’s findings concerning the interview are not included in the record, the interview and any implied inferences to be drawn therefrom may not be considered on appeal. Consequently, such an in camera interview may be ineffective unless the parties agree to waive the right to appeal the trial court’s ruling.
We further note that the children are now 17% years of age and 15/6 years of age, and when custody is returned to the mother, it will necessitate a move by the children from Georgia to Florida. This will obviously cause a disruption in their lives. The mother and father would do well to implement this court’s decision with a full measure of patience and wisdom. See Gibbs, 686 So. 2d at 645 (noting that courts must trust that divorced parents usually want what is best for their children and have far greater ability to assess the interests of the children).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order changing custody and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and STRINGER, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ogilvie v. Ogilvie, 954 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…. Ward, 874 So. 2d 634, 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Burger v. Burger, 862 So. 2d 828, 831-32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Perdices v. Perdices, 800 So. 2d 289, 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Muniz v. Muniz, 789 So. 2d 370, 371-72 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Goodmon v. Goodmon, 779 So. 2d 490, 491 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Young v. Young, 732 So. 2d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Metcalfe v. Metcalfe, 655 So. 2d 1251, 1253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Kelly v. Kelly, 642 So. 2d 800, 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), to the extent they imported into the best int…
-
Muniz v. Muniz, 789 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…VonHegel v. VonHegel, 732 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Lenders v. Durham, 564 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Finney v. Giddens, 707 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Schweinberg v. Click, 627 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); cf. Goodmon v. Goodmon, 779 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Accordingly, I would affirm the right of the children to remain in Miami but would order that in place of the award of primary physical residence to the husband, he should be granted only temporary primary [*380] residential res…
Authorities Cited
- Karie Lynn Gibbs v. Gibbs, 686 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Chant v. Chant, 725 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Fuxan v. Gardner Axel Seaholm, Jr., 685 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)