PAMELA R. LINDGREN, APPELLANT,
v.
ERIC P. LINDGREN, 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 the trial court's custody order, finding it supported by the record despite its unusual nature.
Following a divorce filing, the father gained temporary custody after the mother engaged in an extramarital affair. Although the mother later ended th…
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 Appellate Review Of Discretionary Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
The order appealed from might be wrong, but it is not erroneous. This may baffle the layman, so we explain: appellate judges will not substitute their judgment for that of the trial judge if the record supports the judgment.
A custody order providing that the father shall have custody of the young twin daughters four days one week and three days the next, alternating with the mother, strikes us as unusual, but it is amply supported by the record and it is apparent that the trial judge had uppermost in his mind the welfare of the children. This is as it should be.
When Pamela Lindgren filed her suit for divorce her husband took the girls without her knowledge. She filed a petition, and their temporary custody was placed in her. Later she began a liaison with a married man who rented a house for her, paid a portion of the rent and spent considerable time there. Eric Lind-gren sought and got temporary custody as a result. Five weeks before the final hearing Pamela broke off the extra-marital relationship and moved to her parents’ home. For all that appears in the record, at the time of the final hearing she was living under morally satisfactory circum*441stances but, as Judge Driver said, “one robin does not make a Spring.” This case is thus differentiated from Julian v. Julian, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 896. See Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 592.
Both of the parties and their mothers are anxious to have the responsibility of caring for these children, and it is possible that these three-year old twins must for a while have their lives disrupted and their affections torn. But the trial judge is well aware that the mother has prior claim to custody, other things being equal. The trouble is, Pamela Lindgren hasn’t shown yet that other things are equal on a stable and continuing basis.
Affirmed.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and PIERCE, J., 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)…te this awesome array of judicial disfavor, the prohibition against alternating custody is not absolute. In the 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 custod…
-
Taylor v. Schilt, 292 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…nd visitation. This is not now a case like Epperson v. Epperson, Fla.1958, 101 So. 2d 367; Longstreth v. Frischkorn, Fla. App.3d 1965, 171 So. 2d 550; Bernstein v. Bernstein, Fla.App.2d 1969, 220 So. 2d 429; or Lindgren v. Lindgren, Fla.App.2d 1969, 220 So. 2d 440. In all of those cases factors fresh at the time of divorce militated against changing custody, but the courts in each case had in mind that the petitioner might gain custody by his or her own efforts to provide a proper home. This mother has demons…
-
Julia v. Duffy, 247 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…lly, the appellant cannot now complain that split custody is unlawful when she herself stipulated to the judgment appealed from. Shenk v. Shenk, Fla.App.3d 1961, 126 So. 2d 286. This case seems to us much like Lindgren v. Lindgren, Fla.App.2d 1969, 220 So. 2d 440, in which we affirmed a judgment awarding custody several days each week to each parent. There we pointed out that the mother had some personal problems to overcome before she would be entitled to full custody, and that the judgment is open to modif…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 179 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Eugenia Julian v. Julian, 188 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)