ALLEN
v.
ALLEN
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.
A grandmother sought custody of her grandchildren and guardianship of their property from their mother, Ruby Diane Allen. The court denied the custody petition but appointed a neutral guardian for the children's property due to the mother's felony conviction and potential conflicts of interest regarding the children's inheritance.
The court denied the grandmother's petition for custody, finding no evidence that the children should be removed from their mother's care. However, the court appointed a disinterested third-party guardian for the children's property rather than the mother, due to her felony conviction and potential conflicts of interest regarding the children's inheritance.
[1] A petition for custody will be denied when there is no evidence presented that would justify removing children from their mother's custody.
[2] A felony conviction disqualifies an individual from serving as a guardian of property, even if the conviction is currently under appeal.
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“The court has seen no evidence at hearing or from the custody investigation that would justify the taking of these children from her custody.”
Establishes the court's finding that the mother was fit to retain physical custody despite the grandmother's challenge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClara Mae Allen, the grandmother, filed a petition for custody and guardianship against her daughter-in-law Ruby Diane Allen, the mother of four child…
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 Petition For Appointment Of Guardian cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an action for custody and appointment of a guardian filed by Clara Mae Allen against her daughter-in-law Ruby Diane Allen. The respondent is the mother of Lennie, Derrick, Terrence and Ketcha and the petitioner is the grandmother of said children.
The court has heard testimony and received a thorough custody investigation into the fitness of the respondent to take care of these children. The court has seen no evidence at hearing or from the custody investigation that would justify the taking of these children from her custody. It is thereupon ordered that petitioner’s petition for custody is denied.
The respondent has been convicted of a felony and under the laws of this state she cannot be appointed guardian of property owned on behalf of the children. Respondent’s counsel contends *25that since that conviction is being appealed the respondent should not be considered guilty of a felony. The court disagrees.
It further appears that appointment of a guardian other than respondent is advisable regardless of the conviction. The proceeds of the insurance policy and the deceased husband’s share of the parties’ home would go to Ruby Diane Allen if she were innocent of the death of her husband but would go to the children if she were guilty of unlawfully and intentionally killing him. Carter v. Carter, 88 So.2d 153; Ashwood v. Patterson, 49 So.2d 848.
Further, there appears to be a possibility of a malpractice claim arising out of the husband’s death, and, as a practical matter, the children’s rights would suffer if the action was taken by Ruby Diane Allen rather than a disinterested guardian. However, no good reason exists for appointing as guardian a person such as the petitioner inasmuch as there is great animosity between petitioner and respondent. The mere fact that the above described property may belong to the children rather than to respondent is not sufficient to justify a lawsuit if the guardian is otherwise satisfied that the respondent will use the proceeds for the best interests of the children.
It is thereupon ordered that a person to be mutually agreed upon by the parties be appointed guardian of the property of the children. If the parties are unable to submit a name to this court within 20 days, the court will appoint a guardian.
Jurisdiction of this cause is retained for the purpose of entering such further orders as to the court may seem necessary.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ashwood v. Patterson, 49 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 1951)
- Carter v. Hunter J. Carter, Sr., 88 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1956)
- Sunshine State Fair, Inc. v. Jenin, 88 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1956)