LILLIAN KIMBALL, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES KIMBALL, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a lower court's decision denying a mother's request to change custody of her two sons, finding that while the mother had rehabilitated herself, the circumstances did not justify altering the existing custody arrangement.
No, the trial court did not err in denying the mother's request to change custody, as the changed conditions and circumstances were not sufficient to justify altering the established custody arrangement.
“although the court had the authority to change custody, the changed conditions and circumstances were not such as to justify a change in custody of the two sons.”
This quote explains the trial court's reasoning for denying the change in custody.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a divorce where custody of four sons was awarded to the father due to the mother's inability to provide for them, the mother, after the fath…
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 Change Of Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
Lillian Kimball, defendant in a divorce proceeding brought by James Kimball, appeals a post-decretal order denying request for change of custody of two children born of the marriage.
The husband brought the divorce proceedings in which the custody of the four sons of the marriage was awarded to the husband because of the apparent inability of the mother to properly provide for them. More than a year after the divorce and after the remarriage of the husband'the wife sought to obtain custody of the two younger sons. The court heard extensive testimony to the effect that the wife had rehabilitated herself and as to the home conditions of the children in the custody of the father and their stepmother. The mother has right of visitation at reasonably frequent intervals.
The chancellor carefully considered the circumstances of the parties and reached the conclusion that, although the court had the authority to change custody, the changed conditions and circumstances were not such as to justify a change in custody of the two *551sons. Under such circumstances this court will not overrule the determination of the chancellor. Martens v. State ex rel. Gross-man, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 440.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gertrude Pelnik v. Pelnik, 100 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Martens v. State, 100 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)