THOMAS F. BRADLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
SANDRA BRADLEY, 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 this 1970 Florida divorce case, a husband appealed a trial court's award of custody of four minor children to the wife despite findings of gross misconduct on her part, including behavior contrary to basic moral standards. The appellate court affirmed the custody award, deferring to the trial court's discretion and noting the judge's reservation of jurisdiction to review conditions in six months.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's custody award to the wife, declining to upset the trial judge's discretion at that time. The court deferred to the trial judge's determination that the children's welfare and best interests were best served by awarding custody to the wife, particularly because the trial judge reserved jurisdiction for six months to review the living conditions of the children.
[1] A trial court's custody determination will not be overturned on appeal if the court explicitly reserved jurisdiction to review the custody arrangement at a later date.
[2] A petition for attorney's fees on appeal will be denied when the requesting party fails to demonstrate need and the opposing party's ability to pay.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“This record reflects a pattern of conduct on the part of the wife that is contrary to the basic moral standards of any community.”
Establishes the court's acknowledgment of the wife's misconduct, supporting the husband's allegations in the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA divorce action involved a husband and wife with four minor children, all under their teens. The husband was granted a divorce on his counterclaim al…
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 Gross Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant-husband by this appeal from a judgment in a divorce action challenges the trial court’s order granting custody of the parties’ four minor children to the wife upon the grounds that the wife has been guilty of gross misconduct to such an extent that she was not a fit and proper person to be awarded custody of the children, and custody by her is detrimental to the welfare and best interests of the children. The husband was granted the divorce upon his counterclaim alleging adultery and extreme cruelty.
This record reflects a pattern of conduct on the part of the wife that is contrary to the basic moral standards of any community. This pattern of conduct is especially disturbing in view of the fact that the wife is a highly trained social worker. Apparently she is capable of rendering advice to our unfortunate underprivileged citizens but is incapable of disciplining herself to conform to basic standards of decency. The trial judge was confronted with the tremendous responsibility of deciding which of the two parents should have primary custody of the four minor children, none of which had reached their teens. He found that the welfare and best interests of these children at the present time would be best served by *499granting custody to the wife with liberal visitation rights to the father. We observe that the trial judge specifically reserved jurisdiction of the custody arrangement for a period of six months for the stated purpose : “ * * * to review the living conditions of said minor children.” In view of the trial judge’s decision to again examine the conditions within six months from date of the final judgment as to the best interests and welfare of these children, this Court will decline to upset the trial judge’s discretion at this time.
Appellee-wife has petitioned for attorney’s fees for defending this appeal. It is observed that no attorney’s fees were awarded to the wife by the trial judge. Need on the part of the wife with the commensurate showing of ability to pay on the husband’s part has not been shown; therefore, the petition for attorney’s fees is denied.
Affirmed.
JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.