RICHARD EDWARD DIBBLE, III, APPELLANT,
v.
RHODA LEIGH BOWLIN, 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 court held that the emergency ex parte order granting temporary custody and denying visitation was improper because the mother's motion failed to allege the requisite grounds for such an order without notice.
The mother obtained an emergency ex parte order granting temporary custody of the children and denying the father visitation. The father appealed this…
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 Temporary Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
WALLACE, Judge.
Richard Edward Dibble, III (the Father), appeals the emergency ex parte order granting temporary custody of their two children to Rhoda Leigh Bowlin (the Mother) and denying the Father visitation. Because the Mother’s motion failed to allege the requisite grounds that would have authorized the trial court to enter an order on an emergency motion for a temporary change of custody without reasonable notice to the Father, we reverse. See Loudermilk v. Loudermilk, 693 So. 2d 666, 667-68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
We remand to the trial court for a full evidentiary hearing in which the burden shall be on the Mother to prove the grounds warranting a modification of temporary custody in the manner she requested. See Williams v. Williams, 845 So. 2d 246, 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The Father, too, shall be permitted to present evidence, and the trial court shall consider the children’s best interests. See id. at 248-49.
The hearing shall take place within twenty days of the issuance of our mandate unless both parties agree to hold the hearing at a later date or to have it coincide with the “final hearing on custody and visitation” that was contemplated by the ex parte order. The emergency order shall remain in effect until an evidentiary hearing is held in a manner consistent herewith. See Crooks v. Crooks, 657 So. 2d 918, 919 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
Reversed; remanded with directions.
ALTENBERND, C.J., and SILBERMAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Crider, 932 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…porary order remain in effect and that the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on the father’s motion within twenty days from the issuance of our mandate, unless both parties agree to hold a hearing at a later date. See Dibble v. Bowlin, 857 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Crooks, 657 So. 2d at 919. At that hearing, the father must present competent, substantial evidence supporting his request for an emergency temporary modification of the custody provisions of the final judgment. See Williams, 845…
Authorities Cited
- Loudermilk v. Loudermilk, 693 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Kerstin Williams v. Williams, 845 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Phillips v. State, 657 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Crooks v. Crooks, 657 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)