RUTH GIBSON JOBE, APPELLANT,
v.
JACKSON MALCOLM JOBE, 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 awarding custody of a child to the father in a divorce case, finding sufficient evidence supported the decision and that the lower court did not abuse its discretion.
Yes, there was sufficient competent evidence to support the trial court's award of custody to the father.
“A party seeking to reverse a custody order has the burden of establishing that it is unreasonable or that the Chancellor abused his discretion in determining the matter.”
This quote establishes the legal standard for appealing a custody decision, placing a significant burden on the appellant.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a divorce proceeding, the trial court awarded custody of the parties' four-year-old son to the father. The mother appealed this custody award, chal…
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 Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from that portion of a final decree in a divorce case which awarded custody of the parties’ four-year-old son to the father. The only question which was raised for our consideration by the appellant was the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Chancellor’s award of custody.
A careful review of the record on appeal, the briefs, and arguments herein indicates that there was sufficient competent evidence presented to the Chancellor to uphold the granting of custody to the.father. A party seeking to reverse a custody order has the burden of establishing that it is unreasonable or that the Chancellor abused his discretion in determining the matter. Dworkis v. Dworkis, (Fla.App.3d 1959) 111 So.2d 70, 72 A.L.R.2d 1189; Borden v. Borden, (Fla.App.3d 1966) 193 So.2d 15.
Affirmed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rolison v. State, 210 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1968)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 202 So. 2d 791.…
Authorities Cited
- Dworkis v. Dworkis, 111 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Borden v. Borden, 193 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)