SONIA SIMAKOVA MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
DANIEL E. MILLER, 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.
In this family law appeal, the Wife challenges the trial court's designation of the Husband as primary residential custodian of the parties' minor children in a dissolution of marriage. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's custody determination, finding it supported by substantial competent evidence and consistent with statutory requirements under Florida law.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion. The court's reasons satisfied the statutory requirements of section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, and the record contained substantial competent evidence supporting the designation of the Husband as primary residential custodian. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's custody decision.
[1] A trial court has broad discretion in child custody matters, and its decisions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
[2] An appellate court will not disturb a trial court's custody decision unless there is no substantial competent evidence to support it, even if there is a conflict in the e…
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“It is well settled that a trial court has broad discretion in child custody matters, and its decision in that regard is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”
Establishes the deferential standard of review applied to custody determinations on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSonia Miller and Daniel Miller were parties to a dissolution of marriage proceeding involving custody of their minor children. The trial court conduct…
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
HAWKES, J.
Appellant, Sonia Miller (the Wife) appeals the trial court’s final order of dissolution of marriage which designated Ap-pellee, Daniel Miller (the Husband) the primary residential custodian of the parties’ minor children. As grounds, the Wife argues the trial court abused its discretion by designating the Husband primary residential custodian because the reasons cited by the trial court in support of its designation are not supported by the record, and do not satisfy the statutory requirements for custody determinations as set forth in sections 61.13(3)(a),(j), Florida Statutes.
We find the trial court’s reasons satisfy the statutory requirements of section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, and the record contains a plethora of substantial competent evidence to support its designation.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, requires a trial court, in deciding issues of shared parental responsibility and primary residence, to evaluate “all factors affecting the welfare and interests of the child” to determine the child’s best interest. Adair v. Adair, 720 So. 2d 316, 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Mian v. Mian, 775 So. 2d 357, 358-359 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
It is well settled that a trial court has broad discretion in child custody matters, and its decision in that regard is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Adair, 720 So. 2d at 317; see also Sullivan v. Sullivan, 668 So. 2d 329, 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Where reasonable persons could differ as to the trial court’s ruling, there is no abuse of discretion. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). “Despite a conflict in the evidence, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s custody decision unless there is no substantial competent evidence to support that decision.” Adair, 720 So. 2d at 317; see also Undercuffler v. Undercuffler, 798 So. 2d 867, 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
Moreover, “there is no statutory requirement that the trial court make specific written findings in a custody decision.” Adair, 720 So. 2d at 317 (citing Murphy v. Murphy, 621 So. 2d 455, 456-457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)); see also Ford v. Ford, 700 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
Sub judice, the Wife argues the trial court failed to give weight to evidence indicating she should be designated primary residential custodian. We acknowledge the record contains evidence which could support a ruling designating her primary residential custodian.
However, as this court has previously stated “[i]t is not our function to reweigh the evidence or to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.” Cole Taylor Bank v. Shannon, 772 So. 2d 546, 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (quoting Smith v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 681 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)); Clegg v. Chipola Aviation, Inc., 458 So. 2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The appellate court merely determines whether the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial competent evidence. Cole Taylor Bank, 772 So. 2d at 552; Smith, 681 So. 2d at 871; Clegg, 458 So. 2d at 1187.
In this case, the trial judge was faced with the always difficult task of determining which parent should be designated primary residential custodian, where the evidence could favor either parent. Despite there being no requirement, the trial judge provided a thorough, written evaluation of each of the factors contained in section 61.18(3), Florida Statutes. Each of the trial judges findings were supported by substantial competent evidence. We commend the trial judge for his very thorough consideration of each element of section 61.13(3), and the detailed written opinion delineating each factor considered. The final order of the trial judge is
AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD and POLSTON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Lissette C. Schwieterman v. Schwieterman, 114 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…e in establishing a parenting plan and we reject former wife’s argument that the standard of review is de novo. The trial court has broad discretion in child custody matters and its decision is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Miller v. Miller, 842 So. 2d 168, 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). A trial court’s time-sharing plan must be affirmed if there is competent substantial evidence to support that decision and reasonable people could differ with respect to the trial court’s decision. Ferri v. Apple, 900 So. 2…
-
Burnham v. Burnham, 884 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ich was well within that court’s wide discretion in ruling on custody based on the best interest of the child. The order determining custody therefore should be affirmed. See Artuso v. Dick, 843 So. 2d 942, 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Miller v. Miller, 842 So. 2d 168, 169, 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). (b) Attorney’s Fees The judgment states that the former wife has established a need for contribution to the attorney’s fees which have been incurred and that the former husband’s superior earning capacity demonstrate…
-
Pena v. Rodriguez, 273 So. 3d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…she will testify truthfully, by taking an oath or affirmation . . .”); Houck v. State, 421 So. 2d 1113, 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (“An unsworn witness is not competent to testify.”) (citing Crockett v. Cassels, 95 Fla. 851, 116 So. 865 (1928)). 3 842 So. 2d 168, 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (citations omitted); see Turnier v. Stockman, 139 So. 3d 397, 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“We review the trial court’s final judgment establishing a parenting plan for an abuse of discretion.” (citations omitted)); Smith v. S…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Adair v. Adair, 720 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Murphy v. Murphy, 621 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Cole Taylor Bank v. Shannon, 772 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Angelia Sullivan v. Sullivan, 668 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Clegg v. Chipola Aviation, Inc., 458 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Haywood v. State, 458 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Undercuffler v. Undercuffler, 798 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Ford v. Ford, 700 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Haroon-Pascal Mian v. Alyce Sabrina Grant Mian, 775 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)