ANTHONY G. GIACOIO, APPELLANT,
v.
GRACE GIACOIO, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a modification of custody and visitation, finding the evidence substantially supported the trial judge's decision.
The father appealed a post-judgment order denying his petition to change custody of the children from the mother to himself. He also appealed the rest…
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 Child Visitation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a post-judgment order denying appellant’s petition for modification of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage by changing custody of the children from the mother to the father. The cause was bitterly contested in the trial court and the record is voluminous. Appellant contends that the trial court misapplied the law by using an incorrect standard of proof and abused its discretion in failing to grant the requested change in custody. In addition, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by restricting appellant’s rights of visitation granted under the final judgment.
We have examined the record in light of the arguments expressed by the parties and reach the conclusion that the evidence, although conflicting, substantially supports the decision of the trial judge. Therefore, the decision is affirmed. See Aronson v. Aronson, Fla.App.1969, 227 So. 2d 214.
Appellant’s additional point urging error upon the basis of the trial court’s change in appellant’s visitation rights without a specific prayer therefore does not present error under the principle stated in Scheer v. Scheer, Fla.App.1961, 132 So. 2d 456. Furthermore, the record reveals emotional conflict between the appellant and the appellee which was affecting the children. Under these circumstances, the trial court had the right to make such an order as would appear proper for the protection of the interests of the children. Cf. McCown v. McCown, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 250.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hunter v. Hunter, 540 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…n as seem to be indicated...” Scheer, 132 So. 2d at 458. A review of the record clearly demonstrates that the relationship between the parties and its detrimental effect on the children justified the court’s temporary relief. See Giacoio v. Giacoio, 286 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Longo v. Longo, 245 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). In announcing his decision, the trial judge stated: "I am deeply concerned about the husband’s continued conduct concerning the medication [of appellant's daughter].... I’ve com…
-
Daewid Hechler v. Marita Hechler, 351 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). But, certainly in the best interest of the minor child, it can limit or prevent visitation. Cf. Scheer v. Scheer, 132 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1961); Cortina v. Cortina, 108 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958); Giacoio v. Giacoio, 286 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1973). In the instant action, the chancellor prevented visitation for a three-month period because of evidence that demonstrated the adopted child was in fear of the appellant. The chancellor, at all times, has the power to alter a vis…
Authorities Cited
- Scheer v. Scheer, 132 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Aronson v. Layha S. Aronson, 227 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- McRAE v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 227 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- McCOWN v. McCOWN, 167 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)