ATTIE MARIE BRIDGES, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT DAVID BRIDGES, 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 former wife appeals a custody modification order changing primary residential custody of two minor children from her to the father. The appellate court reverses, finding that the trial court abused its discretion by relying on insufficient changes in circumstances to justify the modification.
The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion in modifying custody because the changes in circumstances since the original order were insufficient to constitute a substantial or material change, and the trial judge primarily relied on the wife's pre-dissolution conduct rather than post-dissolution changes.
[1] Modification of child custody requires competent substantial evidence demonstrating a substantial or material change in circumstances since the original order and that th…
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by modifying child custody based on circumstances that existed prior to the entry of the original custody order.
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“Modification of custody is proper only if there is competent substantial evidence showing a substantial or material change in the circumstances of the parties since the entry of the original order and that the welfare of the children would be promoted by a modification of the custody provision.”
Establishes the two-part legal test for custody modification that the trial court failed to satisfy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were divorced by consent on March 3, 1992, with the wife receiving primary residential custody of their two minor children. On April 8, 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 Petition To Modify Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The former wife appeals an order modifying primary residential custody of the parties’ two minor children. We reverse.
The husband and wife were divorced by Consent Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage rendered March 3,1992. The husband and wife agreed that the wife would have primary residential custody of the children. On April 8, 1992, the husband filed a Petition for Modification of Final Judgment, in which he alleged there had been material changes in circumstances and sought a modification placing primary residential custody of the children with him. Subsequent to a hearing, the trial judge modified custody placing primary residential custody of the children with the husband.
“Modification of custody is proper only if there is competent substantial evidence showing a substantial or material change in the circumstances of the parties since the entry of the original order and that the welfare of the children would be promoted by a modification of the custody provision.” Dobbins v. Dobbins, 584 So. 2d 1113, 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA1991), review denied, 598 So. 2d 75 (Fla.1992) (emphasis in original). Neither part of this two part requirement has been satisfied in the present case.
The only changes in circumstances relied upon by the trial judge in modifying custody which were changes subsequent to entry of the original order are that the husband has remarried and his new wife does not work, the husband now has his own home, the wife has remarried the man she allegedly cohabited with, the wife’s new husband plays softball and/or golf three nights per week, the oldest child is not enrolled in T-ball or dance lessons, and the wife has listed her home in Callahan for sale and may move to Jacksonville. The majority of the testimony presented at the hearing and relied upon by the trial judge related to acts or behavior on the part of the wife which occurred prior to the entry of the original order of dissolution. The husband was aware of this evidence and the trial judge was aware of allegations of the wife’s behavior prior to the entry of the original order. The changes in circumstances since the entry of the original order are insufficient to constitute a substantial or material change of circumstances. The modification therefore amounts to an abuse of discretion. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BOOTH, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bartolotta v. Bartolotta, 687 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…” parenting skills sufficient to justify modification was an abuse of discretion, as relatively minor mistakes usually associated with parenting, as found here, are not considered substantial and material changes in circumstance. Bridges v. Bridges, 625 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Stern, 616 So. 2d at 146; Jablon v. Jablon, 579 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). In sum, the facial inadequacy of the Father’s petition and the legal insufficiency of the trial court’s order, which was not confined to the Father’…
-
Landingham v. Landingham, 685 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…t has previously determined to be in the best interest of the child. This is exactly the opposite situation from one where the court is considering a modification request concerning a change of the custodial parent. See generally Bridges v. Bridges, 625 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). We find, based on the record before us, that the former wife demonstrated a substantial change of circumstances based on the application of the Russenberger and Mize factors. We also determine that the undisputed record demonst…
-
Kilgore v. Kilgore, 729 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…lution and initial custody determination do not constitute the substantial change of circumstances required for a modification of the initial custody determination. See, e.g., Holmes v. Greene, 649 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Bridges v. Bridges, 625 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Finney v. Giddens, 707 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Blosser v. Blosser, 707 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). In Finney, the court concluded that evidence the child had been living with her father off and on for the preceding tw…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dobbins v. Dobbins, 584 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)