MARY FISHER, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIS FISHER AND SYBIL FISHER, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1980-11-12
No. 79-1090
Before HENDRY, SCHWARTZ and NESBITT, JJ.
390 So. 2d 142 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1980) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Visitation Rights Child Custody

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Visitation Rights cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We review an order by which the paternal grandparents were granted weekly visitation of the widowed appellant’s three young children.

By reference to the provisions of Section 68.08, Florida Statutes (Supp.1978), we find that the trial court acted within its authority in granting visitation privileges to appellees herein.1

The same Order seeks to facilitate its visitation provision by forbidding appellant to remove her children from Broward County, where she and they now reside. This was error. § 61.13(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1978).2

The Order, insofar as it permits visitation by the grandparents, is affirmed; paragraph four of that order, only insofar as it restricts appellant’s ability to remove her children and herself from the state or jurisdiction of the circuit court, is reversed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

. Ch. 78-5, § 2, Laws of Fla., which became § 68.08, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1978), became law upon approval by the Governor on April 25, 1978. See Art. III, § 8(a), Fla.Const. The circuit court’s Final Order on Visitation was signed on October 12, 1978.

. Ch. 78-5, § 1, Laws of Fla.; see note 1, supra.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • von Eiff v. Leonor Azicri and Roberto Azicri, 699 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
    …cumstances we find that the broad scope of the visitation order runs contrary to Kelly’s best interests, and must be reversed. See Sketo, 559 So. 2d at 381 (extensive visitation unreasonable and not in minor child’s best interest); Fisher v. Fisher, 390 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)(visitation to grandparents upheld but order facilitating visitation by forbidding-parent to remove children from Broward County reversed). IV In conclusion, finding that section 752.01(l)(a) does satisfy the requirements of the…
  • In re the Marriage of Mary Nell Dixon v. Ronald Michael Melton (Deceased) and Ronald H. Melton and Frances C. Melton, 565 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
    …February 7, 1990. Appellants are correct in asserting that section 61.13(2)(b)2.c., Florida Statutes, does not permit an order restricting the movement of a minor child solely to “facilitate” a right of visitation by grandparents. Fisher v. Fisher, 390 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Cf. Section 752.01(1), Florida Statutes. However, additional facts must be considered in determining whether the court’s order was entered “solely” for the purpose of permitting visitation by the paternal grandparents. Insofar as…
  • Picallo v. Picallo, 443 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
    …ana v. Constantine, 318 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). The other error urged on the cross-appeal is found to be without merit. Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 [*192] So. 2d 22 (Fla.1975); Putnal v. Putnal, 392 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Fisher v. Fisher, 390 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), Section 68.08 Fla.Stat. (1981). Therefore, the final judgment under review is modified by striking paragraph 4 therefrom. Paragraph 7 is reversed with directions to enter a judgment for $15,000 in favor of the appellee and agains…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw