NANCY MEHAFFEY
v.
THEO MEHAFFEY
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 custody dispute following a divorce, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a trial court's decision to award custody of a five-year-old boy to his father rather than his mother, subject to conditions regarding the father's residence and the grandmother's presence in the home. The court held that the trial judge's findings regarding the comparative fitness of the parents would not be disturbed on appeal absent clear error.
The court affirmed the trial court's custody award to the father, holding that where testimony on fitness is taken before the trial judge, his findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless error is clearly made to appear, and that sufficient evidence existed to sustain the findings.
“The welfare of the child is the prime objective of the law; and such welfare is to be determined by the chancellor subject to review on appeal or other authorized judicial procedure.”
Establishes the fundamental principle governing child 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 intelligenceNancy and Theo Mehaffey were divorced by decree on June 7, 1938, with initial custody of their five-year-old son awarded to the mother and visitation …
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 Chancellor's Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
In a decree dated June 7, 1938, granting a divorce to the wife, Nancy Mehaffey, the custody of the only child of the couple, a five-year-old son, was awarded to *158the mother with the privilege of the father to have the child on Sundays until the further order of the court.
On November 10, 1938, upon petition filed by the father, Theo Mehaffey, and upon testimony taken before the court, the decree rendered contains the following:
“It Is Thereupon Considered, Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the decree of June 7, 1938, be and the same is hereby modified and that the custody' and control of the minor child, Maxie Mehaffey, be and the same is hereby awarded the petitioner, Theo Mehaffey, so long as he shall live and reside in Alachua County, Florida, and so long as the mother of the said Theo Mehaffey shall make her home with him; and provided further that the said Nancy Mehaffey shall have the custody o.f the child for one day of each week, to-wit: Sunday, until the further order of this court.”
Nancy Mehaffey appealed, and in effect contends that the evidence does not justify the award of the custody of the child to its father as against its mother, the main questions being the fitness of the mother to retain custody of the child and the fitness of the father to have such custody, the father’s mother living with him to aid in the care of the five-year-old son of the divorced couple.
The welfare of the child is the prime objective of the law; and such welfare is to be determined by the chancellor subject to review on appeal or other authorized judicial procedure. Where the testimony upon the issues is taken before the chancellor, his findings thereon will not be disturbed unless error is clearly made to appear. As there is sufficient evidence to sustain the findings of the chancellor, the decree will not be reversed, the chancellor having the power and duty to make further orders as the proper custody, care and well-being of the child may require, to the end that the welfare of the child may be fully provided *159lor and preserved at all times. See Meadows v. Meadows, 78 Fla. 576, 83 So. 392; Mooty v. Mooty, 131 Fla. 151, 179 So. 155.
Affirmed.
Wi-iitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Buford, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Chief Justice Terrell and Justice Thomas not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cone v. Cone, 62 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 1953)…do not understand the law of this state to be that jurisdiction to modify a divorce decree as to custody of the children of the divorced parties is dependent upon an express reservation in the decree ■of such jurisdiction. See Mehaffey v. Mehaffey, 143 Fla. 157, 196 So. 416; Meadows v. Meadows, 78 Fla. 576, 83 So. 392; Fisher v. Guidy, 106 Fla. 94, 142 So. 818; and Frazier v. Frazier, 109 Fla. 164, 147 So. 464, 465. In the case last cited this court said: “It is undoubtedly the law of this state that the p…
-
Elise Coursey Jones v. Reed Jones, 156 Fla. 524 (Fla. 1945)…It is well settled that in a proceeding involving custody of minor children the welfare of the children is the controlling consideration. Frazier v. Frazier, 109 Fla. 164, 147 So. 464; Green v. Green, 137 Fla. 359, 188 So. 355; Mehaffey v. Mehaffey, 143 Fla. 157, 196 So. 416. Ordinarily, in the ease of children of tender years such welfare is not best promoted by ordering a divided custody of such children between the parents. Phillips v. Phillips, (Fla.) 13 So. (2nd) 922, or by taking them from the mother,…
-
Phillips v. Phillips, 153 Fla. 133 (Fla. 1943)…decree the chancellor awarded the custody of the child to the father in deference to the well established rule that, all other things being equal the welfare of the child is the court’s prime object and [*135] main concern. See Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 143 Fla. 157, 196 So. 416; Fields v. Fields, 143 Fla. 886, 197 So. 530. So it is that the terms of the final decree not only appear to have been just and right but the record also shows that it met with the approval and approbation of, and was agreed to by, bot…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Meadows v. Lafayette F. Meadows, 78 Fla. 576 (Fla. 1919)
- Mooty v. Mooty, 131 Fla. 151 (Fla. 1938)