IN THE INTEREST OF K. H. ET AL., CHILDREN
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed trial court's transfer of custody of two minor children from maternal grandparents to natural mother and her husband, finding substantial evidence supported the best-interests determination and no abuse of discretion.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in returning custody of dependent children to their natural mother when substantial competent evidence supports a finding that such return is in the children's best interests.
[1] In a child custody proceeding involving dependent children, a trial court's decision to return custody to the natural parent is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will…
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 intelligenceTwo minor boys were found to be dependent children and placed in temporary custody with their maternal grandparents approximately eighteen months befo…
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 Dependent Child cases and more on FLexlaw
OWEN, Judge.
In this child custody case, the contending parties are the natural mother and her husband, to whom legal custody of two minor children was transferred by the order appealed, and the maternal grandparents, to whom temporary custody had been given some eighteen months earlier after the children had been found to be dependent children. The record contains substantial competent evidence to support the trial court’s finding that it was in the best interests of the two young boys that their custody be returned to their natural mother, and this being so, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in ordering the change of custody. The order appealed is therefore affirmed.
The court’s order expressly provided that the dependent status of the boys was being continued for a period of one year at the conclusion of which the Division of Family Services was directed to request that the case be reviewed to determine the appropriateness of the court terminating jurisdiction or making any further orders necessary for the best interests of the children. The order was dated August 15, 1974. Although more than one year had transpired at the time this case was orally argued to this court, counsel advised us that such further hearing had not been held. Upon remand the trial court is re spectfully requested to hold such further hearing as was contemplated by its order of August 1974, and to receive such evidence as it deems appropriate, and to enter such further order as to it appears to be for the best interests and welfare of the two young boys.
Affirmed.
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pape v. Pape, 444 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), may well justify an award of custody to a non-parent, the mere fact of temporary physical possession by a stepparent does not in itself furnish grounds for permanent deprivation of parental custody. See, In Interest of H., 320 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); State ex rel Sparks v. Reeves, 97 So. 2d 18 (Fla.1957); and Wray v. Williams, 352 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977). Parents have a natural and a legal right to the custody of their children, and, other things being equal, the cour…
-
In the Interest of M.A. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 906 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…to support the trial court’s findings that it was in the children’s best interests to place them with their relatives, and thus, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the change in custody. See In the Interest of K.H., 320 So. 2d 868, 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); see also Zediker v. Zediker, 444 So. 2d 1034, 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (reviewing the trial court’s factual findings concerning the best interests of the children in a custody dispute for competent substantial evidence); V.…
-
Doyle R. Alderman v. Alderman, 484 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), may well justify an award of custody to a non-parent, the mere fact of temporary physical possession by a stepparent does not in itself furnish grounds for permanent deprivation of parental custody. See, In Interest of H., 320 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); State ex rel Sparks v. Reeves, 97 So. 2d 18 (Fla.1957); and Wray [*1388] v. Williams, 352 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977). Parents have a natural and a legal right to the custody of their children, and, other things being equal,…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence