STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. DOROTHY MAY KUHL GALEN, APPELLANT.
v.
RICHARD LOUIS KUHL, 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.
This case concerns whether a Florida court must grant full faith and credit to an Alabama child custody decree when the child was domiciled in Florida during the Alabama proceedings. The court held that the Alabama court lacked jurisdiction because the child was not present in Alabama, and thus Florida was not required to recognize the decree.
No, the trial judge did not err. The Alabama court lacked jurisdiction to issue the custody decree because the minor child, the res of the action, was not present in Alabama. Therefore, Florida was not obligated to give full faith and credit to the Alabama decree.
“A proceeding for the determination of the custody of a minor child is in the nature of an action in rem. Therefore, the presence of the minor child is a necessary requirement to the exercise of jurisdiction of the court.”
Establishes the legal principle that jurisdiction in child custody cases requires the child's presence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant initiated a habeas corpus proceeding seeking custody of her minor child. The appellee father and the child were domiciled in Florida thr…
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 Child Welfare cases and more on FLexlaw
This was á habeas corpus proceedings instituted by the appellant for custody of the minor child of the parties.
The principal point presented by this appeal is whether or not the trial judge’s failure to accord full faith and credit to an Alabama child custody decree was error. The minor child and appellee father were domiciled in .Florida at all times during the custody proceedings in Alabama. A proceeding for the determination of the custody of a minor child is in the nature of an action in rem. Therefore, the presence of the minor child is a necessary requirement to the exercise of jurisdiction of the court. It affirmatively appears from the record that the Alabama court was without jurisdiction to determine the custody of the minor child in question. See State ex rel. Rasco v. Rasco, 139 Fla. 349, 190 So. 510; Dorman v. Friendly, 146 Fla. 732, 1 So.2d 734; Digiorgio v. Digiorgio, 153 Fla. 24, 13 So.2d 596; Dahlke *226v. Dahlke, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 16. Therefore, it was not error for the trial judge to refuse full faith and credit to the Alabama decree under the circumstances disclosed by this record.
The welfare of minor children is the concern of the state in which the child may reside or he domiciled. The lower court awarded the child to the father and since no testimony of the proceedings has been included in the record on appeal, the appellant has failed to show reversible error. In re Nelson, Fla.1957, 94 So.2d 845.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and PEARSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lang v. Lang, 252 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…of discretion. McKenna v. McKenna, Fla.App.1969, 220 So. 2d 433. It is a fundamental proposition that the welfare of minor children is the concern of the state in which the child may reside or be domiciled. State ex rel. Galen v. Kuhl, Fla.App.1958, 103 So. 2d 225. In furtherance of this proposition the legislature enacted F.S. Section 61.14, F.S.A., which permits either party to apply to the circuit court of the circuit in which the parties resided at the date of application for the modification of any agree…
-
Rhoades v. Bohn, 114 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)…may be deemed proper. STURGIS and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur. . Dahlke v. Dahlke, Fla.1957, 97 So. 2d 16; Cone v. Cone, Fla.1953, 62 So. 2d 907. . Dorman v. Friendly, 146 Fla. 732, 1 So. 2d 734. . State ex rel. Galen v. Kuhl, Fla.App. 1958, 103 So. 2d 225. . Giachetti v. Giachetti, 157 Fla. 259, 25 So. 2d 658; Digirogio v. Digirogio, 153 Fla. 24, 13 So. 2d 596; State ex rel. Clark v. Clark, 148 Fla. 452, 4 So. 2d 517. .State ex rel. Galen v. Kuhl, supra note 3; Dahlke v. Dahlke, supra note 1; Gil-m…
-
Bohn v. Rhoades, 121 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1960)…a.1957, 97 So. 2d 16. It will be observed that this opinion, al-tbougb labelled as a concurring opinion, was agreed to by three other Justices and therefore constitutes a binding precedent of this’ Court. .State ex rel. Galen v. Kuhl, Fla.App.1958, 103 So. 2d 225.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Digirogio v. Digirogio, 153 Fla. 24 (Fla. 1943)
- Dorman v. Friendly, 146 Fla. 732 (Fla. 1941)
- State ex rel. Wendell F. Rasco v. Wilhelmina Gates Rasco, 139 Fla. 349 (Fla. 1939)
- Dahlke v. Dahlke, 97 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1957)
- In re Lacy A. Nelson, 94 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 1957)
- Goldfarb Novelty Co. OF Fla., Inc. v. Vann, 94 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 1957)