MARGARET L. MCMANUS, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES W. MCMANUS, 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.
In a custody dispute arising from a 1969 divorce, the trial court granted the father permission to remove three minor children from Florida to Michigan. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that removing the children would effectively nullify the mother's visitation rights and was not in the children's best interests.
The court reversed the trial court's order granting permission to remove the children to Michigan and affirmed the denial of the mother's motion for change of custody. The court held that removing the children to Michigan would effectively nullify the mother's visitation rights and was contrary to the children's best interests.
[1] A trial court errs in granting a parent permission to remove children from the state if such removal would effectively nullify the other parent's visitation rights.
[2] The best interests of children, including the ability to maintain regular contact with both parents, are a primary consideration in child custody and relocation decisions…
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“We believe the trial court erred in granting the father permission to remove the children to the State of Michigan, thereby rendering visitation of the children by their mother a nullity.”
Establishes the core holding that removing children would improperly eliminate the mother's visitation rights.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMargaret and James McManus were divorced in 1969, with custody of their three children (ages 8, 9, and 10) awarded to the father. The divorce decree p…
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 Visitation Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant and appellee were divorced in 1969, and the court awarded custody of the three minor children of the parties to the appellee father. The order of the court awarding custody also prevented either party from removing the children from the State of Florida.
Subsequently, the father petitioned the court for modification of the final decree, seeking permission to remove the children to the State of Michigan. The mother contested modification and asked that the decree be modified giving her custody of the children. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge granted appellee’s petition to remove the children to the State of Michigan and this appeal ensued.
We believe the trial court erred in granting the father permission to remove the children to the State of Michigan, thereby rendering visitation of the children by their mother a nullity. The mother has been seeing the children almost daily. This arrangement seems to be in the best interests of the children whose ages are 8, 9 and 10. To remove these children from the State of Florida to the State of Michigan would for all intents and purposes nullify the mother’s opportunity to visit the children and have them visit with her.
The testimony shows that appellant mother has remarried and provides an adequate home and surroundings for the visitation of the children. The uncontradicted testimony of Dr. Rosenblum also shows that the best interest of the children would best be served by remaining where the mother could visit with the children.
For these reasons the order allowing the father to remove the children from the State of Florida is hereby reversed, and the order denying appellant’s motion for a change of custody is affirmed.
Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
PIERCE, J., concurs.
HOBSON, C. J., dissents.
(dissenting).
I feel that the trial court’s order should be affirmed in its entirety.
Hobson, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I feel that the trial court’s order should be affirmed in its entirety.