FRANKLIN E. HARDISTY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
S. JARVIS HARDISTY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision to grant a father's petition for habeas corpus but ultimately remand custody of a child to the mother. The court reiterated that while fathers have prima facie custody rights, the child's best interests are paramount.
The court held that while the father has prima facie custody rights, the best interests of the child are the primary consideration. The court also found that the father could seek a separate order for visitation.
“This court is committed to the doctrine that the father is entitled prima facie to the custody of his minor child subject always to the modification that the best interests of the child will be the matter of first consideration.”
Establishes the legal standard for child custody, balancing paternal rights with the child's welfare.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA father filed a petition for habeas corpus to gain custody of his minor child. The lower court granted the writ but, after a final hearing, remanded …
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 Best Interests Of The Child cases and more on FLexlaw
[*65] Terrell, C. J.
Plaintiff in error and defendant in error were husband and wife. Plaintiff in error as petitioner below filed his petition .for habeas corpus to secure the custody of his minor child. The writ was granted and on final hearing the custody of the child, Thomas Carver Hardisty, was remanded to defendant in error, S. Jarvis Hardisty, its mother. Writ of error is taken from that judgment.
It is contended by petitioner that the return of the respondent to the petition was insufficient, that the father is entitled prima facie to the custody of his minor child and that the order remanding the child to the custody of the mother is without recourse in that it makes no provision for the father to visit or see the child at any time.
As to the latter contention it is sufficient to say that the father may secure an order permitting him to visit the child at any time on proper showing made to the chancellor. As to the first contention it is enough to say that the return may not be a model pleading but it is sufficient in a proceeding of this kind. This court is committed to the doctrine that the father is entitled prima facie to the custody of his minor child subject always to the modification that the best interests of the child will be the matter of first consideration.
In this cause the court below heard the testimony, and on due consideration awarded the custody of the child to its mother, the defendant in error. No.error is shown to have been committed so his judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur. Whiteield, P. J., and Bueord, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.