JAMES W. CURLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
DIANE M. CURLEY, 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 a child custody modification case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's award of temporary custody to the father and instead granted permanent custody, while also eliminating child support obligations for the older son who had voluntarily moved in with his father. The court held that given the teenager's age and the father's relocation to accommodate him, permanent custody was appropriate and child support should cease.
The court held that because of the older son's age and the circumstances present, the trial judge should have awarded permanent custody to the father, and upon such permanent custody, all child support for that child should have ceased.
[1] A trial court should grant permanent custody to a father when the parties' teenage son voluntarily moves to reside with him, and the father has made accommodations for th…
[2] Upon a permanent change in custody of a child to the father, child support obligations for that child should cease.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We hold that, because of the age of the older son and under these circumstances, the trial judge should have made the custody of this son permanent with the father and that, upon such custody being made permanent, all child support for this child should have ceased.”
Establishes the court's holding that permanent custody should have been awarded and that child support must cease when a teenager voluntarily resides with the noncustodial parent.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUpon divorce, the mother was awarded custody of two minor sons (ages 15 and 11) and the father was ordered to pay $50 per week support for each child.…
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
PER CURIAM.
Upon dissolution of a marriage, the mother was awarded the custody of two minor children of the parties, two sons: James W., Jr. (then 15, now 16), and Douglas (then 11, now 12), and the father was required to pay $50.00 a week as support for each of the minor children. Subsequent to the dissolution of the marriage, the oldest son had an altercation with his mother, left her house, and moved in with the father. The father immediately attempted to secure a reconciliation between the older boy and his mother, without success. He thereupon moved for an order of modification, changing the custody of the older son to himself and reducing the amount of child support.
The trial judge awarded temporary custody to the father upon the petition, but at this time denied a reduction in the child support. Several months later, the matter came on for a hearing as to the custody of the older boy. After conferences with the boy and receiving evidence by the parties, the trial judge entered the order here under review, leaving temporary custody of the older son with the father and reaffirming his order declining, to reduce the child support and awarding a minimal attorney’s fee to the wife. This appeal ensued, the husband contending that the award of custody should have been permanent, that the trial judge should have reduced the child support payments and the award of attorney’s fees.
The record indicates that the husband, because of the older boy taking up residence with him was required to move his residence in order for the older son to have sufficient space to accommodate him and to be near to his school, etc. We hold that, because of the age of the older son and under these circumstances, the trial judge should have made the custody of this son permanent with the father and that, upon such custody being made permanent, all child support for this child should have ceased.1 Goldstein v. Goldstein, Fla.App. 1972, 264 So. 2d 49; In Re Gregory, Fla. 1975, 313 So. 2d 735; Feldman v. Feldman, Fla.App.1975, 317 So. 2d 136; Cf. Simon v. Simon, Fla.App.1975, 319 So. 2d 46.
We have examined the appellant’s point as to attorney’s fees and find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in the award as made.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the order here under review is modified to provide permanent custody of the older son in the father and to eliminate the support payments of $50.00 to be made on behalf of the older son, James E. Curley, Jr. . The support payments made prior to the effective date of this opinion should not be returned by the wife, but should cease upon the date of the mandate of this court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Contreras v. Contreras, 645 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…al judgment of marriage dissolution. Athough the court was well-motivated in attempting to provide some support for the children, the husband has no legal obligation to continue the child support payments under these circumstances. Curley v. Curley, 327 So. 2d 834, 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Warrick v. Hender, 198 So. 2d 348, 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); Denton v. Denton, 147 So. 2d 545, 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). Moreover, the provision of the order appealed from creating a post-majority asset for the children in a tr…
Authorities Cited
- In re Gregory v. Gregory, 313 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1975)
- Burton J. Goldstein v. Goldstein, 264 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Alda Phyllis Feldman v. Al Feldman, 317 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Simon v. Simon, 319 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)