GENA GASTON, F/K/A GENA MCDOUGALL, MOTHER, APPELLANT,
v.
CARY R. KANTER, FATHER, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2008-04-03
No. 1D07-4941
ALLEN, WEBSTER, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
982 So. 2d 34 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2008)

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.

Synopsis

A Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's decision to modify child custody from the mother to the father in a paternity action. The court held that the father, as the party seeking modification, failed to meet the heightened burden of proving both a substantial and material change in circumstances and that the modification would serve the child's best interest.


Holding

The court held that the father failed to meet his heightened burden as the party seeking custody modification. The father did not establish either a substantial and material change in circumstances or that the modification would serve the child's best interest. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in changing custody.


Headnotes

[1] A party seeking modification of a custody award bears the burden of establishing both a substantial and material change in circumstances since the last award and that the…

[2] The heightened burden for modifying custody awards is intended to promote the stability of such awards.

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

Key Quotes

“As the party seeking the custody modification, the father bore a much heavier burden than would have applied to the initial custody determination.”

Establishes the heightened standard of review for custody modifications as opposed to initial custody determinations.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The parties had a 14-year-old daughter and entered into a consent custody judgment in 1996 granting primary residential custody to the mother. The fat…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of a supplemental final judgment entered in a paternity action which, among other things, changes the primary residential custody of the parties’ 14-year-old daughter from appellant (who is the child’s mother) to the child’s father. As the party seeking the custody modification, the father bore a much heavier burden than would have applied to the initial custody determination. Cooper v. Gress, 854 So. 2d 262, 267 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), approved in Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So. 2d 928 (Fla.2005).

The father was obliged to establish both that a substantial and material change in circumstances had occurred since the entry of the consent judgment in 1996, and that the requested modification of custody would be in the daughter’s best interest. Wade v. Hirschman, 903 So. 2d at 932-33. As explained in Wade, the purpose of this heightened burden is to promote “the stability of custody-related awards.” Id. at 934.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that competent substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s decision because the father failed to demonstrate either that there had been a substantial and material change in circumstances since the entry of the initial consent judgment or that changing the daughter’s custody would be in her best interest. On the contrary, the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that removing the child from the parent with whom she had spent her entire life would not be in the child’s best interest.

Accordingly, we are constrained to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it entered its supplemental final judgment changing the child’s custody, and that the supplemental final judgment must, therefore, be reversed.

REVERSED.

ALLEN, WEBSTER, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw