MARK MALKIN AND STEVEN M. WISE, ETC.
v.
FABIANA CORREA PLA
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 a custody dispute between a natural parent and a third party, custody can be denied to the parent only when supported by clear and convincing evidence of abandonment, unfitness, or detriment to the child's welfare.
[1] Custody can be denied to a natural parent in a dispute with a third party only upon clear and convincing evidence of abandonment, unfitness, or detriment to the child's w…
[2] Individuals claiming parentage on grounds other than biology or legal status do not possess the same rights as biological or legal parents.
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“[I]n a custody dispute between a natural parent and a third party (including grandparents), custody can be denied to the parent only when supported by clear and convincing evidence establishing that the parent has abandoned the child or is in some other meaningful sense an unfit parent, or that placing the child with the parent will be detrimental to the child's welfare.”
Murphy v. Markham-Crawford, 665 So. 2d 1093, 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
The case involves a custody dispute between natural parent(s) and a third party. The trial court issued a non-final order addressing custody or visita…
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 Parental Unfitness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Murphy v. Markham-Crawford, 665 So. 2d 1093, 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“[I]n a custody dispute between a natural parent and a third party (including grandparents), custody can be denied to the parent only when supported by clear and convincing evidence establishing that the parent has abandoned the child or is in some other meaningful sense an unfit parent, or that placing the child with the parent will be detrimental to the child’s welfare.”); Russell v. Pasik, 178 So. 3d 55, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“[T]hose who claim parentage on some basis other than biology or legal status do not have the same rights, including the right to visitation, as the biological or legal parents.”); Lane-hepburn v. Hepburn, 290 So. 3d 589, 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (noting section 61.13, Florida Statutes, applies only to parents’ rights and “‘does not extend to nonparents.’” (quoting Russell, 178 So. 3d at 59.)); LiFleur v. Webster, 138 So. 3d 570, 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“[A] trial court cannot engage in a ‘best interests of the child’ analysis unless and until there is sufficient proof to establish parental unfitness or substantial threat of significant and demonstrable harm to the child.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Murphy v. Markham-Crawford, 665 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Russell v. Pasik, 178 So. 3d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
- Martine LiFLEUR v. Webster, 138 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Sherran Lane - Hepburn v. Hepburn, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2666 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)