CATHERINE E. MATHEISL STERN, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT CHARLES MATHEISL, 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 child custody appeal, Catherine Stern challenged a Florida trial court's grant of a habeas corpus petition that awarded custody of the parties' minor child to Robert Matheisl based on a prior California custody order. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that in the absence of a clear record showing the trial court ignored the child's best interests, appellate courts must presume the trial court applied the correct legal standard.
While the best interest of the child is the vital issue in custody cases, the appellate court presumes that the trial court applied the correct legal principle in the absence of a clear indication otherwise in the record. The trial court's order need not contain an express finding regarding the best interests of the child if the record does not clearly indicate the trial court failed to consider this factor.
[1] A Florida court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to enforce a foreign custody order.
[2] In the absence of a sufficient record on appeal, an appellate court must presume that the trial court applied the correct principle of law based on competent evidence.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Of course, the best interest of the child is always the vital issue in cases of this type.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that best interests of the child must be paramount in custody disputes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCatherine Stern obtained a California divorce decree in 1967 awarding her custody of the minor child Aaron. Stern and the child moved to Florida and r…
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 Habeas Corpus For Child Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant obtained a California decree of divorce from appellee in 1967, in which decree appellant was awarded custody of the parties minor child, Aaron. Appellant and the child moved to Florida where they have resided continuously since that time. In 1971 appellee successfully applied to the California court for an order awarding him custody of the minor child. On the basis of that order, appellee applied to the Circuit Court of Broward County for writ of habeas corpus to obtain custody of the child. After hearing on the petition, the writ was granted and the appellant ordered to surrender custody to appellee. This is the order appealed.
Appellant tells us that the trial court heard six hours of testimony, but then entered its order granting custody to appellee, not on the merits of the best interests of the child, but solely on the basis of the California order. Of course, the best interest of the child is always the vital issue in cases of this type. Crane v. Hayes, Fla.1971, 253 So.2d 435. While it is true that the order appealed did not contain an expressed finding to the effect that the award of custody to appellee would be in the best interest of the child, neither does the order clearly indicate that the trial court did not base its decision upon a consideration of the best interests of the child. The record on appeal does not contain any of the proceedings had before the court at the hearing on the petition, nor has there been a stipulated statement of the facts filed. In the absence of a sufficient record we must presume that the trial court *344applied the correct principle of law on the basis of competent evidence introduced at the. hearing. See Johnson v. Town of Eatonville, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 664; Sydney Paper Company v. Gans, Fla.App. 1966, 193 So.2d 41.
The order appealed is affirmed.
REED, C. J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Crane v. Hayes, 253 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1971)
- Johnson v. Town OF Eatonville, 203 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Sydney Paper Co. v. Gans, 193 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)