IN THE INTEREST OF G. M. JOANNE MUNSEY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 child custody case, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed a juvenile court's denial of parents' petition to regain full custody of their three-year-old son after he had been in protective custody due to unexplained injuries. The court found the trial judge abused his discretion by denying the petition despite uncontroverted evidence of parental fitness and psychiatric improvement.
The court held that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to restore full-time custody to the parents, as the judge's concerns about future mistreatment were unsupported by any evidence in the record.
[1] A parent's right to custody of a child, once forfeited due to derelictions, is not irrevocably lost and may be regained when the cause for forfeiture is removed.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a petition for child custody when the petition is supported by uncontroverted evidence and there is no evidence to contradi…
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“Although parents may by their own derelictions forfeit the right to continued custody of their offspring, this does not mean that such right is irrevocably lost. Nor does it mean that when the cause for forfeiture has been removed, the parents stand in the position of strangers in contention with the temporary custodian for the return of their child's custody.”
Establishes that parental custody rights, though forfeited through misconduct, can be restored once the underlying cause is removed and parents demonstrate fitness.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe child was taken into protective custody by the Juvenile Court of Dade County due to injuries of undetermined origin. Over nearly two years, the 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 Petition For Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order of the Juvenile Court of Dade County, Florida, denying appellants-parents’ petition for custody of their three-year-old son, Glenn.
The petition set forth the following:
“1. That pursuant to proceedings long past this Court saw fit to take the above child into protective custody due to injuries of undetermined origin.
“2. That almost two years have passed during which time your petitioner, Joanne Munsey, has, pursuant to suggestions of Court and Counsel, consulted with the psychiatric out-patient department of Jackson Memorial Hospital.
“3. That the reports therefrom have been increasingly favorable in behalf of your petitioner, and further that the case workers, custodians of said child, and investigators for the State of Florida, operating under the auspices of this Court; have increasingly liberalized visitation and accompaniment of your petitioner with said child to the extent that starting in the latter part of July 1971, said child has been in the accompaniment of your petitioner on weekends and for several days at a time.
“4. That your petitioner would respectfully show unto the Court that she is a fit and proper person to care for said child, and she makes no objection whatsoever to the continued home supervision of the surroundings and the care given to said child, but requests the Court at this time that rather than weekend and temporary visitations that the child of your petitioner be returned to her home.”
*474After an evidentiary hearing- on the petition it was denied.
Appellants contend that the trial judge arbitrarily denied the petition, notwithstanding the fact that it was supported by uncontroverted evidence. It appears from the record on appeal that petitioners made a strong showing of fitness for resuming custody of their child and that there was no evidence offered to contradict petitioners’ evidence. The trial judge expressed concern as to the possibility of the child being subjected to similar mistreatment in the future if custody was restored to the parents. However, this concern and apprehension was not supported by the evidence. In Pendarvis v. State, Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 81 (Wigginton, C. J., specially concurring) it was noted at page 83:
“Although parents may by their own derelictions forfeit the right to continued custody of their offspring, this does not mean that such right is irrevocably lost. Nor does it mean that when the cause for forfeiture has been removed, the parents, stand in the position of strangers in contention with the temporary custodian for the return of their child’s custody.”
We think that in view of the lack of the least shred of evidence to support the court’s denial of the parents’ petition, the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to restore full time custody of the child to its parents. Kersey v. State, Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 726. Therefore, the order appealed from is reversed.'
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of Richard Samuel Kersey v. Kersey, 124 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Pendarvis v. State, 115 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)