ELISABETH WILSON HUTCHINSON, NOW KNOWN AS ELISABETH WILSON VOGT, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD BRUCE HUTCHINSON, 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 reviews a Florida appellate court's decision affirming a lower court's order for split custody of minor children between divorced parents. The mother appealed, arguing the change in custody was made without evidence of her unfitness.
No, the appellate court found no harmful or reversible error in the chancellor's order awarding split custody.
“By interlocutory appeal, the appellant seeks review of a post-decretal order awarding split custody of minor children to the divorced parents.”
Describes the nature of the appeal and the order being reviewed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe divorced parents were awarded split custody of their minor children. The father received custody during the school term, and the mother received c…
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 Custody Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
By interlocutory appeal, the appellant seeks review of a post-decretal order awarding split custody of minor children to the divorced parents. The father was awarded custody during the school term and the mother custody during the summer vacation period of each year.
The appellant’s main contention is that the chancellor erroneously changed the custody of the minor children without any evidence or finding of unfitness on the part of the mother.
We have carefully considered the appellant’s contention in the light of the record, appendices and oral argument, and conclude that the order appealed is without harmful or reversible error. We do not interpret the chancellor’s order as forever foreclosing the appellant’s right in the future, upon a proper showing, to seek the custody of her minor children.
Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gerscovich v. Eugenio Alberto Gerscovich, 406 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…following cases some form of alternating custody was permitted: Hare v. Potter, 233 So. 2d 653 (Fla.4th DCA 1970); Lindgren v. Lindgren, 220 So. 2d 440 (Fla.2d DCA 1969); Bolton v. Gordon, 201 So. 2d 754 (Fla.4th DCA 1967); Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 127 So. 2d 136 (Fla.3d DCA 1961); and Metz v. Metz, 108 So. 2d 512 (Fla.3d DCA 1959). Even in some of those cases where an award of alternating custody was reversed, the courts expressed approval of it in certain situations. In Wonsetler v. Wonsetler, supra, the…