JOHN J. SCHREY, APPELLANT,
v.
CHERYL J. SCHREY, 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.
A Florida court has jurisdiction over child custody matters for children residing within its borders, even if a prior divorce action was filed elsewhere without a custody claim.
The father filed for dissolution and custody in Florida. The mother moved to dismiss, citing a prior divorce action filed in Pennsylvania that lacked …
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 Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
BURNSTEIN, MIETTE K., Associate Judge.
This is a dissolution of marriage and child custody case filed in the Florida courts by the father, appellant herein. The appellant and the children were Florida residents, and the wife, appellee, was properly and constructively served. Appellee moved to dismiss on the grounds that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter because appellee had previously filed a divorce action against appellant in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, although such pleading reflected no prayer for custody. The Florida trial court granted the motion to dismiss based on a finding that the court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter and this appeal followed. We reverse as to the finding that the court lacked jurisdiction over the children in order to determine custody.
Each state is charged with the duty to regulate the custody of infants within its borders. This is true even though the parents reside in another state or if the child’s domicile is in another state. DiGiorgio v. DiGiorgio, 153 Fla. 24, 13 So. 2d 596 (Fla.1943). It is even true where a parent, in bad faith, removes the child from one state to another. State v. Webster, 151 So. 2d 14 (Fla.3d DCA 1963).
The paramount concern of the court should be the best interest of the child’s welfare. Silvestri v. Silvestri, 309 So. 2d 29 (Fla.3d DCA 1975).
The trial court erred in not exercising its jurisdiction and ruling in accordance therewith.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DOWNEY and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Markofsky v. Gertrude Markofsky, 384 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…smiss the instant marriage dissolution action in deference to prior Canadian divorce proceedings involving the parties as the parties and the parties’ minor children are, and have been for a considerable time, residents of Florida. Schrey v. Schrey, 354 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).…
-
Baird v. Baird, 374 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…Florida courts have not hesitated to exercise jurisdiction over the custody of children physically present in this state. See Grant v. Corbitt, 95 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1957); DiGiorgio v. DiGiorgio, 153 Fla. 24, 13 So. 2d 596 (1943); and Schrey v. Schrey, 354 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Also, it has been universally held that when faced with an issue concerning the welfare and custody of a child in this state that the circuit court will exercise its jurisdiction and be governed principally by the welfare and be…
Authorities Cited
- Digirogio v. Digirogio, 153 Fla. 24 (Fla. 1943)
- Baron De Hirsch Meyer v. Laszlo, 151 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Silvestri v. Claudette Aggie Silvestri, 309 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)