JULIA V. DUFFY, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE A. DUFFY, 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 Florida appellate court affirmed a custody judgment awarding one child to each parent, despite the mother's appeal arguing that split custody is improper. The court held that while neither parent was ideal, the trial judge's decision was supported by the record and the mother had stipulated to the arrangement, precluding her from later challenging it.
The court affirmed the split custody arrangement, holding that the trial judge's initial custody decision was supported by the record and not legally erroneous. Because the mother stipulated to the split custody judgment in open court, she cannot later challenge it as unlawful, and the judgment remains subject to modification upon a proper showing of changed circumstances.
[1] A party who stipulates to a judgment cannot later complain that the judgment is unlawful.
[2] While a mother is normally preferred as custodian of young children, this preference is not absolute and can be overcome by evidence presented to the trial court.
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“the appellant cannot now complain that split custody is unlawful when she herself stipulated to the judgment appealed from”
Establishes that a party's stipulation to a judgment precludes later challenge to its legality
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA custody dispute involved a mother and father seeking custody of two boys, one of whom was a stepson adopted by the father. The trial judge initially…
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 Modification Of Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
In custody cases it is often impossible to do the right thing because there is no right thing. Here is a case in which both mother *494and father are less than ideal parents, and after hearing the testimony the trial judge awarded to the father custody of two boys, the older of whom is a stepson adopted by him. The pronouncement of this ruling sent the mother into a highly emotional state. The attorneys and parties then conferred and stipulated that the custody of the older child should be awarded to the mother and of the younger child to the father. She appeals, urging Arons v. Arons, Fla.1957, 94 So.2d 849, as authority for the proposition that custody of several children should not be split.
What might have been in the trial judge’s mind is that the appellee’s mother would be available, as she has been, to care for the children, and that they would be better cared for with legal custody in the father under actual supervision of his mother. Or it may be that the chancellor thought the children’s mother needed to straighten herself out emotionally before assuming the burden of rearing these children. We are in either case reluctant to interfere with the sound judgment of a judge who has seen the parties and heard the evidence. The initial award of custody to the father is supported by the record, although we might have decided differently had any of us been the trial judge. Additionally, 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 modification upon a proper showing.
We do not depart here from the rule that the mother is normally to be preferred as custodian of young children. Kelly v. Kelly, Fla.App.2d 1964, 163 So.2d 498. But this case was heard by a judge whose opportunity to evaluate these parents is better than our own. If since the entry of this final judgment the mother has become emotionally stable and can provide a loving environment for these children she may so indicate in a petition for modification. We cannot say that the judgment entered was the right one. There is no right one where neither parent is adequate to the challenge of parenthood. But it was agreed to in open court and is not legally erroneous.
Affirmed.
PIERCE, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Daniels v. Caparello, 249 So. 3d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Arons v. Arons, 94 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1957)
- Kelly v. Kelly, 163 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Lindgren v. Lindgren, 220 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Shenk v. Shenk, 126 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)