HEIDI RALEIGH, F/K/A HEIDI SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
DEREK SMITH, 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.
Mother appeals from a supplemental final judgment changing primary custody of the parties' children from the mother in Massachusetts to the father in Florida. The appellate court affirmed the custody change, finding that the mother's persistent refusal to honor visitation rights and willful noncompliance with court orders justified the change as being in the children's best interest.
The trial court did not err. Although frustration of visitation alone does not justify a custody change, the court properly considered the mother's hostile attitude toward the father and her persistent interference with his visitation rights, and reasonably concluded that changing custody to the father was in the children's best interest.
[1] A trial court may change custody when a custodial parent refuses to honor visitation rights without proper cause, provided the change is in the best interests of the chil…
[2] A trial court must consider the best interests of the child when determining whether to change custody due to a parent's frustration of visitation.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“frustration of visitation alone will not justify a change of custody. The trial court must consider whether it is in the child's best interest to change custody.”
Establishes the legal standard that a custody change requires consideration of the child's best interest, not merely the parent's violation of visitation rights
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe mother and father have children and live in different states—the mother in Massachusetts and the father in Florida. The trial court had previously…
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 Visitation Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Heidi Raleigh (the mother) appeals from the supplemental final judgment which changes custody of the parties’ children from the mother, who resides in Massachusetts, to Derek Smith (the father), who resides in Florida. We affirm.
The mother argues that the trial court erred in changing the primary residence of the children to the father under section 61.13(4)(c)(5), Florida Statutes (2001), without considering whether the change was in the best interests of the children. That section permits a change of custody when a custodial parent refuses to honor visitation rights without proper cause if the award is in the best interest of the child. Section 61.13(4)(c) also recommends several other, less drastic measures to compel visitation, such as ordering extra visitation or rotating custody.
Here, the trial court had previously tried other options such as extended visitation, which the mother circumvented by having the Massachusetts court suspend the visitation. Because of the mother’s interference with the father’s visitation and her history of willfully refusing to comply with court orders, the court felt it would be futile to order such visitation again. The trial court concluded that anything other than a change of custody would effectively result in the termination of the father’s parental rights.
As the mother argues, “[frustration of visitation alone will not justify a change of custody. The trial court must consider whether it is in the child’s best interest to change custody.” Julian v. Bryan, 710 So. 2d 1037, 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Here, the trial court considered the mother’s hostile attitude toward the father and her interference with his visitation rights. The court found that due to the mother’s behavior it was in the best interests of the children for the father to be designated the primary residential parent and that it would be detrimental to the children not to make this change.
We agree with the mother that a change of custody to a father who has been willfully absent from the children’s lives for years seems extremely harsh. However, the mother has destroyed any standing she may have had to complain by her complete lack of regard for the trial court’s orders. Most recently, the mother has refused to allow the father to have custody of the children, even though her motions for rehearing, for relief from judgment, and for a stay were all denied. Based on her persistent noncompliance, it appears that the trial court has been proven correct in its assessment of the situation. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
CASANUEVA, KELLY, and VILLANTI, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kaschak v. Kaschak, 890 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…per denial of visitation as a substantial change in circumstances. Under either view, the outcome remains unchanged. Our interpretation of section 61.13(4)(c)5. is consistent with decisions rendered by our sister courts. See, e.g., Raleigh v. Smith, 882 So. 2d 1055, 1056 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Leeds v. Adamse, 832 So. 2d 125, 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Teller v. Richert, 744 So. 2d 1230, 1231-32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Williams v. Williams, 676 So. 2d 493, 495 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). We have considered the other arg…
Authorities Cited
- Julian v. Bryan, 710 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)