STUART L. HADDAN, APPELLANT,
v.
ANN C. JENKS, 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 father challenges a trial court's custody determination awarding the mother majority time-sharing and requiring him to pay child support. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court's decision was not supported by competent, substantial evidence as presented in the statement of evidence submitted by the father.
The trial court's judgment was not supported by competent, substantial evidence and therefore must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Although a trial court's decision on a child's best interests should not be disturbed if supported by competent, substantial evidence, this decision failed that test.
[1] A trial court's primary consideration in establishing parental responsibility must be the best interests of the child.
[2] An appellate court is bound to rely on a statement of evidence or proceedings approved by the trial court, even if it constitutes a one-sided version of events.
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“A trial court's primary consideration in establishing parental responsibility must be the best interests of the child”
Establishes the governing legal standard for custody determinations in Florida
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 child together in 2002. In 2007, the father filed a petition seeking full custody, child support, and other relief. The case remaine…
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 Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
The parties to this appeal had a child together in 2002. In 2007, the father filed a petition seeking full custody, child support, and other relief. The case lingered for years until the trial court entered the 2015 final judgment we now review.
After hearing evidence, the trial court entered the judgment, giving the mother majority time-sharing and the father alternating weekends. The judgment also required the father to pay child support and maintain health insurance for the child. The father now appeals.
A trial court’s primary consideration in establishing parental responsibility must be the best interests of the child, see section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2015); Clark v. Clark, 825 So.2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), and the trial court here did report that it “developed this time sharing plan .., in consideration of the child’s best interests, social relationships and his familiar school district.” The father acknowledges that we should not disturb a trial court’s decision on a child’s best interests if that decision is supported by competent, substantial evidence, see, e.g., M.A. v. De *976 partment of Children and Families, 906 So.2d 1226, 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), but he argues that this decision was not.
The hearing was not transcribed, so the father presented no transcript. But he did submit a Statement of Evidence or Proceedings, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(4). The mother did not object to the statement, and the trial court approved it. We are accordingly bound to rely on it—even if it constitutes “a very one-sided version of what occurred in the trial court.” Wollschlager v. Veal, 601 So.2d 274, 275 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), disapproved of on other grounds by Overbey v. Overbey, 698 So.2d 811 (Fla.1997); see also Jenkins v. Jenkins, 159 So.3d 310, 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (relying on a statement of evidence prepared by one party). Based on that statement, and accepting it as the record of what happened below, we' conclude that the trial court’s judgment was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WINOKUR and JAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Overbey v. Overbey, 698 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1997)
- Clark v. Clark, 825 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Wollschlager v. Alisa C. Veal, 601 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- In the Interest of M.A. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 906 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Jenkins v. Jenkins, 159 So. 3d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)