VENUS ELOISE GREEN, APPELLANT,
v.
RONALD NEWSOME GREEN, 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 family law appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's award of custody of a nine-year-old child to the father, holding that the trial judge had sufficient evidence to determine this arrangement best served the child's welfare despite the mother's adequate physical care of the child.
The court affirmed the custody award to the father, holding that substantial evidence in the record supported the trial court's determination that the child's best interests would be better served by placing her with the father rather than the mother.
[1] A trial court's custody determination is presumed correct on appellate review when the judge heard the evidence and witnesses.
[2] An appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that a trial court's custody order is clearly erroneous.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 best welfare of the child is the prime consideration”
Establishes the paramount legal standard in 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 trial court awarded the appellee-husband a divorce and custody of the couple's nine-year-old daughter. Evidence showed that while the appellant-mo…
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 Burden Of Proof cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is taken from an order of the Circuit Court of Suwannee County which awarded the appellee-husband a divorce and custody of the minor child.
The primary question we must now consider is whether the trial judge had sufficient evidence before him to support the decree awarding custody of the nine-year old female child to the father, bearing in mind that the best welfare of the child is the prime consideration. Smith v. Bollinger, 137 So.2d 881 (Fla.App.2nd, 1962); Bennett v. Bennett, 146 So.2d 588 (Fla.App.2nd, 1962). It must also be borne in mind *861that the decision of the trial judge carries with it the presumption of correctness on appellate review where, as here, the evidence and the witnesses were before him. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating to this Court that the order appealed is clearly erroneous. If there is substantial evidence in the record to support the order appealed, this Court must uphold said order even though we may have decided differently had we been in the position of the trial judge. Brenner v. Smullian, 84 So.2d 44 (Fla.1956).
With these fundamental principles of law before us, we have concluded that appellant has failed to demonstrate that the order appealed herein is clearly erroneous. The evidence in the record before us, when coupled with the principle of law that the primary consideration is the welfare of the minor child, is sufficient to support the findings and conclusions reached by the court below.
There was evidence before the trial court that while the appellant did not mistreat or physically abuse the minor child and, in fact, maintained and dressed her in a clean and neat manner, the appellant’s conduct in other matters indicated emotional instability and behavioral patterns which would render her less fit as the primary custodian of the child. Such conduct included excessive spending for clothing and jewelry, her relationships with other men which appeared to be a matter of common knowledge in the community and her suicide episodes. There were no aspersions cast on the father’s character or qualifications as the primary custodian of the child.
With such evidence before him, we cannot say that the trial court’s order awarding primary custody of the minor child to the appellee-father was clearly erroneous. Indeed, the evidence is sufficient to support the finding and holding that the best interest of the child would be better served by placing her with the appellee.
Appellant further challenges the trial court’s order of contempt for failure to timely surrender the child to the appellee. This issue now being moot, we do not deem it necessary to discuss the same herein.
The appellant’s motion for attorney fees and cost on appeal is denied.
The order appealed herein is affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1975)…ears with the myriad cases setting forth the rule that in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion, the decision of the trial judge in a child custody case will not be reversed. Grant v. Corbitt, 95 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1957); Green v. Green, 254 So. 2d 860 (Fla.App. 1st, 1971); and Harrison v. Harrison, 165 So. 2d 235 (Fla.App. 2nd 1966). The only contested issue before the trial court in this proceeding for dissolution of marriage was the matter of custody of the parties’ three-year-old child. In a…
-
Anderson v. Anderson, 309 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1975)…J., and ROBERTS, Mc-CAIN and OVERTON, JJ., concur. ERVIN, J., dissents. . Curtis v. Curtis, 248 So. 2d 204 (Fla.App. 2d 1971) ; Edison v. Edison, 230 So. 2d 184 (Fla.App. 1st 1970) ; Pacheco v. Pacheco, 246 So. 2d 778 (Fla.1971) ; Green v. Green, 254 So. 2d 860 (Fla.App. 1st 1971). . Goodman v. Goodman, 291 So. 2d 106 (Fla.App. 3d 1974). . Posner v. Posner, 251 So. 2d 530, 537 (Fla.1972).…
-
Thellie S. Roper v. Roper, 336 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…75). There is no doubt, in a child custody dispute, that the mental and physical health of the parents is a factor that the court can and should consider in determining the best interests of the child. Fla.Stat. § 61.13(3)(g) (1975). Green v. Green, 254 So. 2d 860 (1st DCA Fla.1971). However, we do not believe that simply by seeking custody of her children, wife has made her mental condition “an element of her claim or defense” thereby waiving her psychiatrist-patient privilege. The wife’s mental condition m…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bennett v. Lysle A. Bennett, 146 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Al Brenner v. Smullian, 84 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1955)
- Smith v. Bollinger, 137 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)