CAROLYN H. FOSTER F/K/A CAROLYN H. PEARSON, APPELLANT,
v.
SCOTT PEARSON, 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 mother challenges a trial court order temporarily changing child custody to the father following her announcement to relocate without consent or court approval. The appellate court agrees the trial court erred by failing to make required findings of fact regarding substantial change of circumstances and the child's best interests, but remands for the trial court to enter proper findings rather than reversing outright.
Although the trial court erred in changing temporary custody without making the required findings as to both substantial change of circumstances and best interests of the child, the proper remedy is remand for the trial court to enter findings of fact based on the record evidence, rather than outright reversal.
[1] A temporary change of child custody requires findings of both a substantial change of circumstances and the best interests of the child.
[2] A trial court's failure to make required findings of fact regarding a change in temporary child custody necessitates a remand for the entry of such findings.
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“even temporary changes of custody must be supported by findings as to both substantial change in circumstances and the best interests of the child”
Establishes the legal standard applicable to temporary custody orders, correcting the trial court's distinction between temporary and permanent custody changes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties had a marital settlement agreement governing custody of their child. The mother announced her intention to move from Brevard County to the…
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 Marital Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
SAWAYA, J.
The mother appeals the trial court's order temporarily changing custody of the parties’ child to the father after the mother announced her intention to move from Brevard County to the west coast of Flori da without the requisite consent of the father or court order, in violation of the parties’ marital settlement agreement.1 She argues, and the father concedes, that the trial court erred in changing temporary custody without making findings as to both a substantial change of circumstances and the best interests of the child. See, e.g., Wilson v. Roseberry, 669 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). They disagree, however, on the next step.
The mother, relying on certain statements made by the trial court at the hearing, asserts that the court found no substantial change had occurred and argues that accordingly, outright reversal of the order changing custody is required. The father, on the other hand, contends that remand for findings is the correct cure, citing Glover v. Glover, 820 So. 2d 324, 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), wherein the trial court ordered a change of temporary custody without making sufficient findings as to one of the children involved. In Glover, this court remanded for entry of appropriate findings of fact based upon evidence in the record, cautioning:
To the extent that the mother failed to carry her evidentiary burden on the issues in controversy, she should not be permitted to benefit by the remand and receive a second opportunity to prove her case. Thus, our remand is for the limited purpose of making factual findings only as to those matters not addressed originally.
Id.
Review of the transcript in the instant case shows that the mother mischaracter-izes the trial court’s statements. The trial court simply refused to make any findings whatsoever, repeatedly citing the fact that it was addressing a temporary change of custody, not a permanent one. This distinction is incorrect, as this court has expressly stated that even temporary changes of custody must be supported by findings as to both substantial change in circumstances and the best interests of the child. Glover; Wilson.
Therefore, we hereby remand with instructions for the trial court to enter findings of fact, based upon record evidence, to support the temporary change in custody.
REMANDED with instructions.
PLEUS, C.J. and THOMPSON, J., concur. . We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clark v. Clark, 35 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…sibov v. Mesibov, 16 So. 3d 890 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Haddix v. Emret, 992 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Argamon v. Argamon, 949 So. 2d 266, 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Small v. Fluegel-Small, 943 So. 2d 897, 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Foster v. Pearson, 925 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Glover v. Glover, 820 So. 2d 324, 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“This test applies whether the party seeks a temporary or permanent modification of custody after the entry of the original final judgment.”); Wilson v. Roseberry, 669 S…
-
Georgeanne Romeo v. Romeo (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…ortant determination a family court must make in a modification proceeding—will typically require reversal of a judgment that modifies a prior judgment's parenting plan. See Bell v. Hill, 976 So. 2d 1192, 1193 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Foster v. Pearson, 925 So. 2d 1136, 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); cf. Engle v. Engle, 277 So. 3d 697, 702 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (observing that in family law proceedings "there is an acute need for the final judgment to contain the findings contemplated by the legislature due to the ongoing…
-
Gomez v. Suarez, 992 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…child. In Hembree v. Thomas, 906 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), it was held that the trial court erred in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the best interests of the child in temporary custody proceeding. In Foster v. Pearson, 925 So. 2d 1136, 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), this Court expressly stated that even temporary changes of custody must be supported by findings as to both substantial change in circumstances and the best interests of the child. To be sure, Ms. Gomez’s conduct in takin…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wilson v. Blaine Alan Roseberry, 669 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Gillard S. Glover v. Glover, 820 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)