CATHERINE WRAY, APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL WILLIAMS AND BARBARA WILLIAMS, APPELLEES
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.
A Florida appellate court affirmed a trial judge's decision to award custody of two minor girls to their biological father after nine years of custody with their paternal grandmother. The court held that the grandmother failed to demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion, as the trial judge properly applied the best interests of the children standard.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody to the father. The appellate court concluded that the grandmother failed to meet her burden of demonstrating clear abuse of discretion, and there was substantial competent evidence supporting the trial judge's custody order.
[1] A trial court's custody determination must be based on the best interests and welfare of the children above all other conflicting needs and interests.
[2] An appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court in a custody dispute unless the trial court clearly abused its discretion.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“After considering the evidence before him, the trial judge was required to base his decision on what he felt were the best interests and welfare of the children over and above all conflicting needs and interests of other parties.”
Establishes the governing legal standard for custody decisions in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTina and Cathy Williams were adjudicated dependent children and placed in legal custody of their paternal grandmother, Catherine Wray, on August 2, 19…
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 Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a hotly contested child custody case. The question presented to us is whether the trial judge abused his discretion by returning custody of two children to their father after they had been living with their grandmother for nine years. Our answer is no.
The appellant is the paternal grandmother who lost custody of the children, and the appellees are the natural father and his wife.
Tina and Cathy Williams were adjudicated to be dependent children and were placed in the legal custody of appellant on August 2, 1971. The girls had been in appellant’s actual custody since their early infancy in 1967 following the divorce of appellee, Paul Williams, and his first wife, their mother. On September 16, 1975, shortly after his third marriage, Paul Williams, joined by his wife, Barbara, filed his petition for custody of the girls. The children’s interests before the trial court were represented neither by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services nor by a guardian ad litem.
After discovery, psychological and psychiatric examinations, and social investigations by a court counselor, there were a series of hearings, resulting in the order of December 9,1976, appealed here, granting custody of the girls to their father. On December 22, 1976, this court denied appellant’s motion for review and petition for constitutional stay writ.
After considering the evidence before him, the trial judge was required to base his decision on what he felt were the best interests and welfare of the children over and above all conflicting needs and interests of other parties. Hosking v. Hosking, 318 So. 2d 559 (Fla.2d DCA 1975).
This is a difficult and close case, and it may well be that any one of us sitting as the trier of fact would have concluded that the welfare of the girls required them to remain with their grandmother. But, that is not the test, and we may not substitute our judgment for his. Instead, the appellant here must show the trial judge clearly abused his discretion. Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1975). After a study of the record before us, we conclude that burden has not been met, and that there is substantial competent evidence underpinning the custody order before us.
Almost one year has elapsed since the change of custody order and we cannot know what has happened to the girls. But, we note they remain under the jurisdiction of the court while they are minors or until the court relinquishes jurisdiction. Therefore, under the powers with reference to dependent children granted by Chapter 39, Florida Statutes, (1975), the court has sufficient authority to monitor the case and enter such further orders of custody, support, visitation, protective supervision by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and professional counseling for the children, parents or guardians, as may be necessary.
Affirmed.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and OTT and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pape v. Pape, 444 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…al 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 court should award custody to a natural parent rather than one who is not a parent. 25 Fla.Jr.2d, Family Law, § 525. A…
-
Vines v. Doyle Eugene Vines, 357 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…held. But as we have said before, it is not the function of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact who concluded that the best interests of these children would be served by placement with their father. Wray v. Williams, 352 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The record here does not disclose that clear abuse of the trial judge’s discretion which is necessary to reverse the custody order and so that portion of the final judgment is affirmed. The contempt finding, however, is clearly…
-
Doyle R. Alderman v. Alderman, 484 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…ssion 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, the court should award custody to a natural parent rather than one who is not a parent. 25 Fla.Jr.2d, Family Law, Section…
Authorities Cited
- Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1975)
- Hosking v. Hosking, 318 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)