MARIA S. COOK, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM ARTHUR COOK, JR., 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 custody and visitation judgment, finding no abuse of discretion and sufficient evidentiary support for the trial court's findings.
A trial court's custody and visitation judgment will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion or reversible error.
[1] A trial court's custody determination will not be reversed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion or reversible error, even where testimony conflicts, if…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaria S. Cook appealed portions of a final judgment concerning custody of the parties' minor child and her visitation rights.…
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 Appellate Review Of Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
JOHNSON, Judge.
Appellant seeks reversal of those portions of the final judgment pertaining to custody of the minor child of the parties and the visitation rights of the appellant-mother. We have heard oral agrúment in this cause and have carefully examined the record on appeal and the briefs submitted by the parties. In our review of the issues presented for decision, we have given due consideration to the applicable principle that a judgment of the trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. The record before this Court reveals that although there are some conflicts in the testimony, there is sufficient evidence to support the findings made and conclusions reached by the trial court, it is not the province of this Court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of facts. These findings will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that the trial court abused its discretion or otherwise committed reversible error. There has been no such clear showing herein.
Our affirmance of the judgment below in no way precludes the appellant-mother from seeking a modification of said judgment should the circumstances of the parties herein change at a subsequent date.
Affirmed.
SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and DREW, E. HARRIS (Retired), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. & William A. Cagle, 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 1977)…76); Ates v. Yellow Pine Land Co., 310 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Littel v. Hunnicutt, 310 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); White v. White, 306 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Rolland v. Thompson, 305 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Cook v. Cook, 305 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Imperial Lumber Co., Inc. v. James Knowles, Inc., 267 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); Becklin v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 263 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); City of Jacksonville v. Mack, 260 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Clem v…
-
Fagan v. Maude Fagan, 381 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…Glaser, 121 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1960). The issue before this court is thus, whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the trial court’s finding that the child, at the time of the hearing, continued to be a “dependent” child. Cook v. Cook, 305 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); In Re Estate of Donner, 364 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978). On this issue the trial court had before it the testimony of Bill’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. James Parsons, and an evaluation by another psychiatrist, Dr. Lloyd Wilde…
-
Horatio Enters., Inc. v. Rabin, 614 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…76); Ates v. Yellow Pine Land Co., 310 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Littel v. Hunnicutt, 310 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); White v. White, 306 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Rolland v. Thompson, 305 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Cook v. Cook, 305 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Imperial Lumber Co., Inc. v. James Knowles, Inc., 267 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); Becklin v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 263 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); City of Jacksonville v. Mack, 260 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Clem v…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence