DAVID FRANK CHILDERS, APPELLANT,
v.
LYNNE RILEY, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a default judgment awarding child custody to the mother, holding that custody determinations cannot ordinarily be made by default against a parent because the court must hear from both parents to properly assess the best interests of the child. The court affirmed the contempt finding for non-payment of child support.
The court held that custody should not ordinarily be determined by default judgment against a parent because the court must consider both parents as possible custodians to properly determine the child's best interests. The court affirmed the contempt finding for nonpayment of child support.
[1] Child custody determinations should not ordinarily be made by default judgment against a parent.
[2] The best interests of a child in a custody dispute require information from all parties to ensure a truly informed decision.
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 custody of a child should never be determined on a default basis. In other words, when we are dealing with the question of custody, this Court must have information from all sides in order to render an ultimate decision that will truly be in the best interest of the child. This can never be done if matters are conducted on a default basis with only one side presenting testimony.”
Establishes the core holding that custody cannot be decided by default; the court must hear from both parents.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid Frank Childers appealed a custody determination in a dispute with Lynne Riley. The trial court entered a default against Childers and awarded cu…
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 Parental Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, J.
We reverse and remand for a new trial on the issue of child custody. As we did in Webber v. Novelli, 756 So. 2d 164, 165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), we hold that the issue of custody should not ordinarily be determined by entering a default against one of the parents. In Webber we said that the best interests of children in custody disputes is not susceptible to default judgment and explained that this court:
“has always been of the opinion that the custody of a child should never be determined on a default basis. In other words, when we are dealing with the question of custody, this Court must have information from all sides in order to render an ultimate decision that mil truly be in the best interest of the child. This can never be done if matters are conducted on a default basis with only one side presenting testimony.”
756 So. 2d at 165.
We recognize that the court also considered a recommendation of the General Master that the father be held in contempt for failing to pay temporary support and that his pleadings therefore be stricken from the record. Nevertheless, the court can'determine the best interests of children in the custody equation only by considering each parent as possible custodian. See Andrews v. Andrews, 624 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (although parent may be “ineffective and uncooperative” as litigant, parent may still be better custodian of party’s children). Moreover, section 61.13(2)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (2001), provides that “[t]he court shall order that the parental responsibility for a minor child be shared by both parents unless ... shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child.” The court made no such finding in this case, and we find no competent evidence to support such a finding anyway.
As to the finding of contempt for nonpayment of child support, we affirm. See Undercuffler v. Undercuffler, 798 So. 2d 867, 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding, even though temporary order designated father as primary residential parent, no abuse of discretion in awarding child support to mother where she had actual custody).
TAYLOR, J., and GRIMES, HUBERT L., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adel Vaelizadeh v. Mahnaz Hossaini, 174 So. 3d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…trial court’s final judgment granting the father custody based solely' on a default and remand to the trial court to conduct such proceedings as are necessary to make findings of fact considering the best interest of the child.”); Childers v. Riley, 823 So. 2d 246, 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (reversing and remanding for new trial on child custody, “holdfing] that the issue of custody should not ordinarily be determined by entering a default against one of the parents”); Armstrong v. Panzarino, 812 So. 2d 512, 51…
-
Amabile A. Causin v. Leal, 881 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…en. The court must have information from all sides in order to render a decision in the best interest of a child. This cannot be accomplished if matters are conducted on a default basis with only one side presenting testimony. See Childers v. Riley, 823 So. 2d 246, 246-47 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). A default may be an appropriate mechanism to decide other issues involved in a dissolution of marriage action. However, it simply is not proper to decide custody based on a default. See id.; see also Rose v. Ford, 861 So…
-
Busman v. State, 905 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…h all those cases that have expressed an aversion to decide the issues of parental rights on a default basis or by “gotcha” practices. B.H., Sr. v. Department of Children and Families, 882 So. 2d 1099, 1100-01 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Childers v. Riley, 823 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(holding that “the issue of custody should not ordinarily be determined by entering a default against one of the parents”); Barnett v. [*959] Barnett, 718 So. 2d 302, 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)(“It has long been the rule in Florida th…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Andrews v. Andrews, 624 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Undercuffler v. Undercuffler, 798 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Betty v. State, 756 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)