RICHARD H. RING, APPELLANT,
v.
CYNTHIA L. RING, 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.
Richard Ring appeals an order modifying child custody of his four minor children. The trial court modified custody based on ongoing parental conflict and emotional harm to the children, but the appellate court reversed as to three of the four children, holding that parental inability to communicate does not constitute a material and substantial change of circumstances warranting modification.
The appellate court reversed the modification order as to the three children, holding that the trial court erred because there was no evidence of a material and substantial change of circumstances as to those three children or that modification was in their best interest. The court held that parental inability to communicate and ongoing hostility do not constitute a material change of circumstances warranting custody modification.
[1] A party seeking post-dissolution modification of custody must prove a substantial, material change in circumstances since the final judgment that is detrimental to the ch…
[2] The parties' continuing hostility and mutual failure to communicate do not, without more, constitute a substantial change in circumstances justifying modification of a cu…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“A party seeking a postdissolution change of custody bears an extraordinary burden.”
Establishes the high standard required for modifying child custody after dissolution of marriage
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichard and Cynthia Ring's final judgment of dissolution incorporated a marital settlement agreement providing for rotating custody of four minor chil…
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 Rotating Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
The father, Richard H. Ring, appeals an order modifying child custody. We reverse.
A party seeking a postdissolution change of custody bears an extraordinary burden. Blosser v. Blosser, 707 So. 2d 778, 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). As this court stated in Gibbs v. Gibbs, 686 So. 2d 639, 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), the movant has an extraordinary burden to prove (1) that a material and substantial change of circumstances has occurred since the final judgment, which is detrimental to the children, and (2) that a change in custody is in the children’s best interest. In the present case, the parties’ final judgment of dissolution of marriage had incorporated a marital settlement agreement which provided for rotating custody of the parties’ four minor children. Seventeen months after the entry of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the mother, Cynthia L. Ring, filed a petition to modify child custody. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order modifying custody, finding that the parties had been unable to confer and that there had been continuing conflict between the parties that had contributed to the emotional problems of one minor child, A.R. The trial court further found that such conflict places the other three children at risk of emotional harm. On appeal, the father does not challenge the modification order as it pertains to A.R. We conclude that the trial court erred in modifying child custody. There is no evidence in the record indicating that there has been a material and substantial change of circumstances as to the other three children or that a change in custody was in their best interest. The record does show that the parties in this case sadly failed to communicate between themselves and had continuing hostility. However, in Newsom v. Newsom, 759 So. 2d 718, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), this court stated that the “fact that the parents cannot communicate and get along does not constitute a material change in circumstances to warrant modification of custody.”
As the father has conceded that A.R. is excluded from this court’s decision, we reverse the order modifying child custody as to the remaining three children and remand for entry of an order reinstating the child custody arrangement as contained in the parties’ marital settlement agreement.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
DAVIS and KELLY, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Cooper v. Gress, 854 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…tion, and that the former wife failed to satisfy the extraordinary burden to warrant modifying custody, we reverse the order and remand with instructions to reinstate the original rotating custody plan and child-support obligation. See Ring v. Ring, 834 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that party seeking post-dissolution modification of custody has extraordinary burden to prove occurrence of substantial, material change in circumstances since final judgment that is detrimental to children’s best interes…
-
Sanchez v. Hernandez, 45 So. 3d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…rder to show a substantial change. See Ogilvie v. Ogilvie, 954 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (the inability of parents to communicate does not amount to a substantial change of circumstances that would justify a custody modification); Ring v. Ring, 834 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (the fact that the parties failed to communicate and had continuing hostility does not constitute a material change in custody to warrant modification of custody). Even when the custodial mother does not keep the father apprised o…
-
Ragle v. Ragle, 82 So. 3d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…. Hernandez, 45 So. 3d 57, 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (holding father seeking custody modification “needed to prove more than merely an acrimonious relationship and a lack of effective communication in order to show a substantial change”); Ring v. Ring, 834 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding fact that the parties failed to communicate and had continuing hostility does not constitute a material change in custody to warrant modification of custody). It is abundantly clear from the pleadings, the custody evaluat…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Karie Lynn Gibbs v. Gibbs, 686 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Newsom v. Newsom, 759 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Charlana M. Blosser v. Blosser, 707 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)