EDWARD C. ENNIS, APPELLANT,
v.
ROSEANNA ENNIS CONRAN, 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 custody dispute, the trial court abated Florida proceedings and deferred to a Texas court where the mother had initiated proceedings, but did so without making findings regarding forum convenience or the best interests of the child. The appellate court held that such findings are required in child custody cases and reversed for remand.
A trial court cannot abate custody proceedings and defer to another forum without making specific findings on the issue of inconvenient forum and the best interests of the child. Such findings are essential to appellate review in child custody cases.
[1] A trial court's order abating a child custody proceeding and deferring to another forum is reversible when it lacks findings as to which forum is more convenient or appro…
[2] When the best interests of a child are involved in a custody dispute, an appellate court must be provided with sufficient findings to determine if the trial court's decis…
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“When the best interests of a child are involved, as here, the appellate court must be furnished with sufficient findings to determine whether those best interests are served by the trial court's decision”
Establishes the standard that custody decisions require adequate findings of fact regarding the child's best interests for appellate review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant (former husband and father) initiated custody and visitation proceedings in Florida. Appellee (former wife and mother) resides in Texas and …
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
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order abating a proceeding involving child custody and visitation. Appellee, the former wife and mother of the child whose custody is in question, now resides in Texas and initiated proceedings there, the purpose of which is not disclosed by the record.
By agreement of the parties, the trial court in this ease communicated with the judge presiding over the Texas proceedings and thereafter, based apparently on that communication, abated the Florida action which had been initiated by appellant, the former husband and father of the child whose custody is in issue.
No useful purpose would be served by an extensive recitation of the vastly divergent views of the background facts presented by the parties. The ultimate issue here is a simple one and its resolution is not fact dependent.
The result of the order of abatement which is the subject of this appeal is to invite the Texas court to exercise its jurisdiction over custody and visitation issues. Whether that is appropriate is the question that gives us concern. Unfortunately, the order does not contain a finding as to which forum is the more convenient or the more appropriate one, nor does it specify any reason for declining to exercise jurisdiction and instead deferring to the Texas forum. No Florida case has held this to be a fatal shortcoming, but we now so hold and cite as a persuasive precedent. Szmyd v. Szmyd, 641 P. 2d 14 (Alaska 1982).
When the best interests of a child are involved, as here, the appellate court must be furnished with sufficient findings to determine whether those best interests are served by the trial court’s decision (in addition to the usual appellate task of legal error correction). The issue determined by the trial court sub silento is that Florida is an inconvenient forum in which to litigate the custody and visitation issues raised by the parties. We have not been provided with findings enabling us to evaluate the trial court’s resolution of those issues. Accordingly, we reverse and remand so that the trial court may revisit the issues, take additional evidence if necessary, permit appellant to be heard, and then to enter an order containing findings on the issue of inconvenient forum (if Texas is again determined to be the appropriate forum for trial of custody and visitation and related issues) together with such additional findings as may be appropriate in the circumstances.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DELL, C.J., and HERSEY and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. Thomas, 724 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…which it might have brought.” See § 47.122, Fla. Stat. (1997). . We distinguish for review purposes orders dismissing an action on forum non conveniens grounds. See, e.g., Decelle v. Kenyon, 667 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and Ennis v. Conran, 648 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). In that circumstance where order of dismissal is final rather than nonfinal we have final appeal jurisdiction under rule 9.110. . The concept of forum non conveniens by its very nature encompasses both section 47.122 and rule 1…
-
Maja Stock v. Stock, 677 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…ida court had priority over the Swiss court. The absence of any findings as to why the trial court proceeded without addressing the motion to stay leaves us to guess why the trial court disregarded the pending Swiss proceedings. Cf. Ennis v. Conran, 648 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (trial court erred in granting motion to abate by failing to make any findings as to which forum was more convenient or appropriate and in failing to specify its basis for deferring jurisdiction).2 There was ample reason for the…1 / 2
-
Decelle v. Suzanna Elizabeth Kenyon, 667 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…990). Moreover, we do not interpret the trial court’s ruling as one of the absence of jurisdiction. Nevertheless, we must still reverse because the court failed to make findings or to express reasons for declining jurisdiction. See Ennis v. Conran, 648 So. 2d 784, 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). The trial court did not have the benefit of Ennis when the order of dismissal was rendered. However, we apply the law as of the time of the determination of the appeal. Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Von Stetina, 47…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence