DEBRA SUZANNE FUXAN, F/K/A DEBRA SUZANNE ARNOLD, APPELLANT,
v.
GARDNER AXEL SEAHOLM, JR., 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.
The court held that the trial court erred by applying the incorrect standard when modifying child custody.
The Mother appealed a trial court's judgment modifying a paternity judgment that had awarded her primary residential custody of the parties' son to th…
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 Substantial Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant/Mother challenges the final judgment modifying an earlier final judgment of paternity that had awarded primary residential custody of the parties’ minor son to the Mother. The modification judgment subject to this appeal awarded custody to the Father. Our review leads us to agree with the Mother that the trial court did not apply the correct standard and, therefore, erred in modifying custody. We, accordingly, reverse.
The trial court appears to have applied merely the “best interests” standard that is used when making an initial custody determination. The court made the section 61.13, Florida Statutes (1995) findings and concluded that modification of custody would be in the best interests of the child. However, when modification of a previous award of custody is sought, the test to be applied involves more than just the best interests of the child. First, the court must find a substantial change in the circumstances of the parties since the original award of custody. In addition, the court must find that a failure to change custody would be detrimental to the child’s overall best interests.
Not only did the court fail to apply the right standard, but the Father also, in his petition to modify custody, argued the wrong standard. He argued only that the child would be better off if he acquired custody. See Garvey v. Garvey, 383 So. 2d 1172, 1173 (Fla.2d DCA 1980). See also Eddy v. Napier, 558 So. 2d 199 (Fla.2d DCA 1990).
We, therefore, reverse and remand with instructions that the child be returned to the residential custody of his Mother. PARKER and WHATLEY, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Charlana M. Blosser v. Blosser, 707 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…stody will so clearly promote or improve the child’s well-being to such an extent that any reasonable parent would understand that maintaining the status quo would be detrimental to the child’s overall best interests.” Id. See also Fuxan v. Seaholm, 685 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Grumney; Kelly; Eddy v. Napier, 558 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Jablon. Father has failed to meet both prongs of this test. We do not disturb the trial court’s credibility findings in favor of Father over Mother; for example w…
-
Goodmon v. Goodmon, 779 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…cumstances of the parties had occurred since the original award of custody and that the failure to change custody would be detrimental to the children’s overall best interests. See Gibbs v. Gibbs, 686 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Fuxan v. Seaholm, 685 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Here, the trial court specifically found that the children would not suffer detriment if primary residential custody were to remain with their mother. In fact, the trial court found the mother to have been a “wonderful mother.” T…
Authorities Cited
- Bonita Marie Garvey v. Garvey, 383 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- McILWAIN v. State, 558 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Eddy v. Napier, 558 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)