RHONDA KNIFLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
WALLY KNIFLEY, 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.
Trial judges are not required to make detailed factual findings for each statutory factor in disputed custody cases, as long as the best interests finding is supported by evidence.
The parties' marriage was dissolved, and the trial court awarded primary residential custody to the husband. The wife appealed, seeking detailed factu…
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.
[*1137] PER CURIAM.
We affirm the final judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage. We write to address one issue raised on appeal. In the final judgment, the trial court found it was in the best interests of the minor children for the husband to have primary residential custody. No other factual findings were made with regard to this hotly contested issue.
The wife requests that this court require trial judges to make detailed factual findings in disputed custody cases. We decline to do so. Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2005), sets forth numerous factors that a trial court is to consider in determining custody. The statute does not require factual findings as to each enumerated factor. It is sufficient for a trial judge to make a finding as to the best interests of the minor child — provided such finding is supported by substantial competent evidence. Duchesneau v. Duchesneau, 692 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). See also Clark v. Clark, 825 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Bader v. Bader, 639 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 649 So. 2d 232 (Fla.1994); Murphy v. Murphy, 621 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
Although there may be valid policy arguments to support the wife’s position, we believe these arguments should be addressed to the Legislature. Hack v. Janes, 878 So. 2d 440, 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON, LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mariann C. Hudson-McCANN v. Laurence L. McCANN, 8 So. 3d 1228 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…trial court’s findings and determination regarding primary parental responsibility is abuse of discretion. The trial court’s findings regarding the best interest of the child must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. Knifley v. Knifley, 944 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). The trial court heard testimony of the parties, the expert witnesses and other witnesses at several temporary hearings and finally at the trial. The trial court appears to have considered the many statutory factors contained in…
-
Henderson v. Reese J. Henderson, 162 So. 3d 203 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…ty is abuse of discretion. The trial court’s findings regarding the best interest of the child must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.” Hudson-McCann [*207] v. McCann, 8 So. 3d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (citing Knifley v. Knifley, 944 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)). Here, the Custody Order contains sufficient findings under section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, to demonstrate that Former Wife’s conduct resulted in a substantial change in circumstances and to justify granting full decision-ma…
-
Bevil v. Carson, 966 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…court is not required to make specific written findings of fact as to each factor listed in section 61.13(3), she argues the trial court is required to evaluate each factor because of policy reasons. However, this court stated in Knifley v. Knifley, 944 So. 2d 1136, 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), that: the statute [61.13(3) ] does not require factual findings as to each enumerated factor. It is sufficient for a trial judge to make a finding as to the best interests of the minor child-provided such finding is suppo…
Authorities Cited
- Murphy v. Murphy, 621 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Anibal Sella v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Women's Work of Cent. Fla., 639 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Clark v. Clark, 825 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Duchesneau v. Duchesneau, 692 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Hack v. Janes, 878 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)