HARRIET JACOBS GUNTER, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES EDWARD GUNTER, 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.
A mother appealed a post-divorce order modifying child custody from her to the father. The court affirmed the modification, holding that substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that changed circumstances and the children's best interests justified the custody change.
The trial court's order modifying custody was affirmed because substantial, competent evidence supported the chancellor's findings that there was a change of circumstances since the original decree and that modification was in the best interests of the children.
“A consideration of every principal applicable to the judicial review of cases of this kind leads us to uphold the order appealed from: This order comes to us clothed with the presumption of correctness.”
Establishes the deferential standard of review applied to trial court custody determinations
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 were divorced and the mother was initially awarded custody of the children. The father filed a petition to modify the custody provisions o…
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
The plaintiff in a divorce action has appealed from a post-decretal order entered by the Court of Record for Escambia County, changing the custody of the parties’ children from the plaintiff to the defendant.
The question presented for our determination in this appeal is whether the evidence before the court at the hearing on the said petition was sufficient to allow the court to declare that the welfare of the children required a modification of the custodial provisions of the said final decree.
In our opinion, this appeal is controlled by the principals which we recognized in the analogous case of Albritton v. Carraway, 215 So.2d 69 (1968), involving a petition to change the child custody provisions of a divorce decree, in which case we said:
“A consideration of every principal applicable to the judicial review of cases of this kind leads us to uphold the order appealed from: This order comes to us clothed with the presumption of correctness. In entering this order the chancellor sat as the trier of the facts as to the two main issues before him — as to whether there was a change of circumstances since the time of the entry of the final divorce decree so as to justify the modification sought; and whether the best interests of the children involved require such modification. This court in the present appeal has no authority to substitute its judgment for that of the chancellor as to such issues, where substantial, competent evidence supports the chancellor’s determination. As the Florida Supreme Court said in Green v. Green, 137 Fla. 359, 188 So. 355 (1939): ‘We are committed to' the doctrine that the welfare of the child is the principal feature in determining custody, and that a very large discretion is allowed the chancellor in this respect, Frazier v. Frazier, 109 Fla. 164, 147 So. 464, although the exercise of such discretion is subject to review.’ ”
Applying in the instant case the principals which we recognized in the Al-britton case, supra, we have examined the evidence adduced by the parties at the hearing on the plaintiff’s petition, and we find sufficient, substantial evidence to support the findings reflected in the order appealed from herein, so that order must be and it is
Affirmed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and SPECTOR, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Laraine Rose Doane v. Doane, 279 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…in the trial court in determining matters of custody and support. Frazier v. Frazier, 1933, 109 Fla. 164, 147 So. 464; Rogoff v. Rogoff, Fla.App.1959, 115 So. 2d 456; Burnett v. Burnett, Fla.App.1967, 197 So. 2d 854; Gunter v. Gunter, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 743; King v. King, Fla.App.1973, 271 So. 2d 159. However, in order to provide a basis upon which the court can exercise such discretion, there must be some evidence concerning the parents’ respective financial positions, the needs of the child, and most…
-
Strickland v. Jacobs, 235 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…review.’ ” In innumerable cases the appellate courts of Florida have recognized the rule that an order appealed from comes to the appellate court clothed with the presumption of correctness. We applied this rule, for instance, in Gunter v. Gunter, 219 So. 2d 743 (Fla.App.1969), which was an appeal from a post-decretal order changing the custody of divorced parties’ children from the plaintiff to the defendant. In that case, however, we found that there was sufficient, substantial evidence in the record to s…
-
Lippincott v. Lippincott, 287 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…marriage proceeding, it is the court which makes the final determination of custody of the minor children. Fla.Stat. § 61.13(2), F.S.A. Further, in making this determination the chancellor has a very large discretion. Gunter v. Gunter, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 743. Turning to the case sub judice, we find that Judge Grossman was not bound to follow her predecessor’s decision to make a final award of custody as recommended in the Family Services report, which is not binding upon the court although it may be ta…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Frazier v. Frazier, 109 Fla. 164 (Fla. 1933)
- Green v. Green, 137 Fla. 359 (Fla. 1939)
- Hunter v. State, 215 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)