EVANGELINA BAEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
ISRAEL BAEZ, 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 this family law appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's denial of a mother's request to relocate with her minor child to El Salvador. The court found that the mother satisfied the established Hill/Mize factors for relocation and that the trial court had applied an incorrect legal standard.
The trial court's denial was reversed because the mother proved the factors established in Hill v. Hill and Mize v. Mize for evaluating relocation petitions, and the trial court erroneously applied an incorrect standard in denying the mother's request.
[1] A party seeking to relocate with a minor child must prove specific factors to obtain court permission, including whether the move will improve the quality of life for the…
[2] The best interests of the child is a generalized summary of the factors to be considered when determining whether to permit a relocation.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The parties agree that neither party shall remove the permanent residence of the minor child from Dade County, Florida without the express written consent of the other party, or prior court order with notice. In the event the Wife is unable to secure permanent residency in the United States, the child may be permitted to reside with the Wife in her native country of El Salvador.”
The property settlement agreement provision from the divorce decree that established the framework for evaluating the relocation dispute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEvangelina and Israel Baez divorced in 1992 under a final judgment incorporating a property settlement agreement that prohibited either party from rem…
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 Visitation Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
GERSTEN, Judge.
Appellant, Evangelina Baez (wife), appeals a post-dissolution order denying her permission to relocate. We reverse.
Wife, and Israel Baez (husband), divorced in 1992. The final judgment incorporated a property settlement agreement containing the following provision:
The parties agree that neither party shall remove the permanent residence of the minor child from Dade County, Florida without the express written consent of the other party, or prior court order with notice. In the event the Wife is unable to secure permanent residency in the United States, the child may be permitted to reside with the Wife in her native country of El Salvador. In 1993, the wife, unable to secure permanent United States residency, petitioned the trial court for permission to relocate, with the minor child, to El Salvador. The husband sought to prohibit the wife’s leaving the country with the child. The trial court conducted a hearing and denied the wife’s request to relocate finding that the wife, “... has not presented a compelling basis for relocating the parties’ child....”
Without detailing the facts of the hearing, we determine that the wife proved the factors pronounced in Hill v. Hill, 548 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review denied, 560 So. 2d 233 (Fla.1990), and later repeated and rearti-culated in Mize v. Mize, 621 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1993). Those factors are:
1. Whether the move would be likely to improve the general quality of life for both the primary residential spouse and the children.
2. Whether the motive for seeking the move is for the express purpose of defeating visitation.
3. Whether the custodial parent, once out of the jurisdiction, will be likely to comply with any substitute visitation arrangements.
4. Whether the substitute visitation will be adequate to foster a continuing meaningful relationship between the child or children and the noncustodial parent. 5. Whether the cost of transportation is financially affordable by one or both of the parents.
6. Whether the move is in the best interests of the child. (This sixth requirement we believe is a generalized summary of the previous five.)
Mize, 621 So. 2d at 420 (quoting Hill, 548 So. 2d at 706).
Therefore, because the wife proved the factors under Hill and Mize, and because the trial court erroneously applied an incorrect standard, we reverse and remand for the trial court’s granting of the wife’s petition.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O'Kane v. Marlyn O'Kane, 660 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Mize v. Mize, 621 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1993); Tremblay v. Tremblay, 638 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Stockburger v. Stockburger, 633 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Baez v. Baez, 627 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), rev. denied, 639 So. 2d 975 (Fla.1994); Tamari v. Turko-Tamari, 599 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Lenders v. Durham, 564 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Hill v. Hill, 548 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 560 So. 2d 23…
Authorities Cited
- Mize v. Mize, 621 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1993)
- Weathers v. Dep't of Admin., 548 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)