GLORIA MARION NILES, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD MILTON NILES, 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 court held that the trial court did not err in changing child custody, as the decision was supported by competent substantial evidence of changed circumstances beyond the mother's interracial marriage.
Following a dissolution, the mother's custody of her two minor children was changed to the father. The mother appealed, asserting the change was due t…
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 Custody Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
Appellant appeals a post-dissolution order which changed the custody of her two minor children from herself to appellee. Appellant, a white woman, asserts that she was improperly deprived of her custody rights by reason of her impending marriage to a black man.
From a study of the record we do not believe it can fairly be said that appellant lost her children solely because of her proposed interracial marriage. The evidence shows that on a number of occasions following the dissolution, men have spent the night in appellant’s apartment while the children were present. Moreover, appellant has suffered from emotional instability as reflected by the fact that she was hospitalized with a nervous breakdown. Testimony indicates that the conduct of the children has changed for the worse in recent months. The circuit court counsellor recommended that custody of the children be awarded to appellee because appellant had “chosen for herself, and therefore for herself and the children, a life style unacceptable to the father of the children and the society in which we live.”
In change-o f-custody cases the welfare of the children is always of paramount concern. Jayne v. Dennison, Fla.App.2d 1973, 284 So. 2d 237; Bolton v. Gordon, Fla.App.4th 1967, 201 So. 2d 754. The effect of an interracial marriage upon a particular child is but one of many fac tors which may be considered in determining the person in whose custody the child’s best interest would be served. The trial judge has broad discretion in making the determination. Johns v. Johns, Fla.App.2d 1959, 108 So. 2d 784. Since there is competent substantial evidence of changed circumstances which would support the order changing custody, this order is
Affirmed.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beaman v. Beaman, 393 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ts may be changed whenever it is shown that children are exposed to situations which are potentially damaging to them. See Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 365 So. 2d 185 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), Young v. Young, 305 So. 2d 92 (Fla.1st DCA 1974) and Niles v. Niles, 299 So. 2d 162 (Fla.2d DCA 1974). As written the limitation would require such a hearing in order for it to be enforced. Appellant’s remaining points on appeal do not present reversible error under the holdings in Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976), and Store…
-
Hadley v. COX, 470 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…DCA 1984); McGregor v. McGregor, 418 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). In this case, the wife did not carry this "extraordinary burden.” McGregor, 418 So. 2d at 1074. . Cf., Culpepper v. Culpepper, 408 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Niles v. Niles, 299 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). . Johnston v. Boram, 386 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).…
-
Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1984)…Pet. for Cert. 24. The court then addressed the recommendations of the court counselor, who had made an earlier report “in [another] case coming out of this circuit also involving the social consequences of an interracial marriage. Niles v. Niles, 299 So. 2d 162.” Id., at 25. From this vague reference to that earlier case, the court turned to the present case and noted the counselor’s recommendation for a change in custody because [*431] “[t]he wife [petitioner] has chosen for herself and for her child, a l…
Authorities Cited
- Jayne v. Dennison, 284 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Bolton v. Patricia H. (Bolton) Gordon, 201 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Johns v. Kelton L. Johns, 108 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)