PRINCE
v.
CARRINGTON
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a chancellor's denial of a mother's petition to modify a child custody decree. The court held that absent changed circumstances affecting the child's welfare, the prior custody award to the mother should remain undisturbed, while preserving the right to seek modification based on future changes in conditions.
The court affirmed the denial of the modification petition, holding that absent changed circumstances affecting the welfare of the child, the existing custody decree should remain in place. The child's welfare is the paramount consideration and supersedes the preferences of the parents.
“The welfare of the child is of first consideration and is of more importance than the desires or wishes of the parents.”
Establishes the fundamental principle governing child custody decisions—the child's welfare supersedes parental preferences.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoth the mother and father of a minor child submitted letters and testimony to the chancellor regarding custody. The original final decree had awarded…
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
MATHEWS, Justice.
This is an appeal from a final order with reference to the custody of a minor child.
After the filing of an amended petition by the mother of the child and the answer by the father, the -Chancellor heard the testimony in person and thereafter made an order reading in part as follows :
“It is the finding of the Court that from the letters written by both parties and produced and admitted in evidence and from the other testimony taken, both parties intended that custody of the minor child of the parties be awarded to the Complainant in the final decree. “And there having been no allegations nor suggestion that the minor child has not been properly cared for since the final decree or that the welfare of the child necessitates a change in the final decree.
“It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed:
“That the Amended Petition For Modification of Decree as to Child Custody be and the same is hereby denied.”
We have carefully examined the record, briefs filed and have heard the argument of counsel. We find no error in the proceeding or the order of the Chancellor. The welfare of the child is of first consideration and is of more importance than the desires or wishes of the parents. Courts of chancery are always open for the purpose of considering petitions, or other proceedings, with reference to the welfare of minor children, irrespective of a final decree or order with reference to custody, if conditions have changed since the entry of such decree or order affecting the welfare of the child.
Affirmed, without prejudice to the right of the appellant to bring other proceedings with reference to the custody of the minor child based upon the welfare of the child due to change in circumstances or conditions.
TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice, and ROBERTS and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DeGROOT v. Fuller, 210 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…e rule adopted. However, -the real criteria on any case of this nature is how can the interests of the children best be served. Cone v. Cone, Fla. 1953, 62 So. 2d 907; Bennett v. Bennett, Fla.App.1962, 146 So. 2d 588; Prince v. Carrington, Fla.1952, 62 So. 2d 77. There was background evidence which the able trial judge had before him which aided him in determining the best, interests of the children and in determining that the appellant father was not a proper person for the custody of these two children.…