NANCY M. ANDERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES ROBERT ANDERSON, 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 dissolution of marriage case, the trial court awarded custody of twin daughters to their father despite both parents being equally fit, finding it in the children's best interests. The appellate court affirmed, holding that while tender years of children may favor mothers in custody determinations, there is no conclusive presumption that young children must always be placed with mothers when both parents are equally capable.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody to the father. While the tender years of children may tip the scales somewhat in favor of the mother, particularly if she is non-working and available full-time, there is no conclusive presumption that young children must always be placed with the mother when both parents are equally fit and capable.
[1] A trial court's custody award will be affirmed if there is substantial competent evidence in the record to support the decision that the award is in the best interests of…
[2] Statutory law treats parents equally when considering child custody.
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“although we might have made an initial ruling different from that of the chancellor, if there is evidence in the record to support his decision we are not authorized to find that he abused his discretion.”
Establishes the abuse of discretion standard of review applicable to custody decisions
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 James Robert Anderson divorced in a dissolution of marriage action filed in 1972. They had twin daughters aged 2.5 years at the time of the …
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 Tender Years Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this case, a dissolution of marriage action which was filed in 1972, the trial judge determined that the best interests of the twin daughters of the parties [aged 2% years at the time of final hearing] was that they remain with their father in the family home.
The appellant-wife has appealed this ruling and assigned as error the custody award, a requirement that she contribute $25.00 per week to the support of the children, and the inadequacy of an award to compensate her for contributions toward the jointly acquired assets. Both parties to this cause were employed by the Federal Government; each makes approximately the same amount of money. This was a marriage of short duration. The children have always been taken care of by day care baby sitters. There is substantial competent evidence in the record to support the trial court’s ruling that the best interests of the children were that they should remain in the custody of the father, although he found that both parents were fit to have custody of the children.
The record in this case presented a most difficult decision for the trial judge and, although we might have made an initial ruling different from that of the chancellor, if there is evidence in the record to support his decision we are not authorized to find that he abused his discretion. Tagliarini v. Tagliarini, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 10; Ebaugh v. Ebaugh, Fla.App.1973, 282 So. 2d 14. The present status of the statutory law in this State is that the parents are to be treated equal in considering custody. § 61.13(2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. This court has recognized this rule in Cardillo v. Cardillo, Fla.App. 1972, 269 So. 2d 773. Our attention has been called to Brust v. Brust, Fla.App., 1972, 266 So. 2d 400 [by the First District], wherein the appellant contends that everything else being equal mothers of infants of tender years should receive prime consideration for custody. We have reviewed the opinion in Brust v. Brust, supra, and believe that it correctly states the evolution of the law relating to custody over the past several centuries. Although the statement in reference to children of tender years was not controlling in the cited case because the trial court found the children were not within such a classification. Undoubtedly, even today, a chancellor must take into account [in exercising his discretion] the fact that the children are of tender years, which might tip the scales in some degree in favor of the mother, particularly if she was non-working and available to be with the children full time.
However, just because everything else being equal, there should be no conclusive presumption that children of tender years must always be placed in the custody of the mother. Our overall view of this record fails to make it appear that the chancellor abused his discretion in awarding custody with reasonable rights of visitation, as he did in the instant case in the best interests of the welfare of the children. Hastings v. Hastings, Fla.1950, 45 So. 2d 115; Pacheco v. Pacheco, Fla.1971, 246 So. 2d 778; Stamm v. Stamm, Fla.App.1972, 266 So. 2d 413; Cardillo v. Cardillo, supra.
The other points urged for appeal have been examined and found to be without merit. Neither party earns sufficient monies to care for these children independently without help from the other. Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final order here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anderson v. Anderson, 309 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1975)…DEKLE, Justice. The present dispute arises out of the child custody provisions of a dissolution of the marriage of the parties. Petitioner cites three decisions of this Court from the 1940s for conflict with the 3rd District’s opinion at 289 So. 2d 463. Fields v. Fields, 143 Fla. 886, 197 So. 530 (1940); Stewart v. Stewart, 156 Fla. 815, 24 So. 2d 529 (1946); and Hurst v. Hurst, 158 Fla. 43, 27 So. 2d 749 (1946). The trial court found that respondent-husband was entitled to the marital home, and…
-
Krogen v. Krogen, 320 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…bership, etc. Milander v. Milander, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 876; Goldblatt v. Goldblatt, Fla.App.1973, 277 So. 2d 34; Maroun v. Maroun, Fla.App.1973, 277 So. 2d 572; Ebaugh v. Ebaugh, Fla.App.1973, 282 So. 2d 14; Anderson v. Anderson, Fla.App.1974, 289 So. 2d 463; Linares v. Linares, Fla.App. 1974, 292 So. 2d 63; Todd v. Todd, Fla.App.1975, 311 So. 2d 769. We do find that the support for the children should have ceased at the age of eighteen and, therefore, the award of support for the daughter who is eight…
-
Antoine Izmery v. Dounia Richard Izmery, 559 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…public operates under a presumption that young children should be in the custody of the father rather than with the mother. Even if we accepted the proposition that Haitian law on this point differs somewhat from Florida’s, see Anderson v. Anderson, 289 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Goodman v. Goodman, 291 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); but see § 61.13, Fla.Stat. (1979), a subtle distinction like this is hardly such as would justify disregarding the jurisdiction and judgment of another nation under section 6…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brust v. Brust, 266 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Elva Anne Pacheco v. Ferdie Pacheco, 246 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1971)
- Thoburn Stamm, Jr. v. Stamm, 266 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Ebaugh v. Ebaugh, 282 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Tagliarini v. Tagliarini, 213 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Flink v. City OF Titusville, 269 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Reverthus Burgess v. State, 269 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)