GILLARD S. GLOVER, APPELLANT,
v.
CAROL WELLS GLOVER, 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 father appeals a trial court's order temporarily changing custody of his two children to their mother. The appellate court affirmed the custody change as to the daughter but remanded for factual findings regarding the son, finding the record insufficient to support the custody change for him.
The trial court's temporary custody order was affirmed as to Jill because the order contained detailed findings supported by competent, substantial evidence satisfying the two-prong test. However, the order was reversed as to Trey because it lacked findings demonstrating a substantial change in circumstances or how the custody change would promote Trey's best interests. The case was remanded for the trial court to enter appropriate factual findings as to Trey or alternatively restore his custody to the father.
[1] A party seeking to modify a custody decree in a post-dissolution proceeding must prove a substantial change in circumstances and that the modification is in the best inte…
[2] The two-prong test for modifying custody applies to both temporary and permanent custody changes after the entry of the original final judgment.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Whenever a parent seeks to modify a custody decree in a post-dissolution proceeding, that parent must prove by competent and substantial evidence, (i) a substantial change in circumstance and (ii) that the best interests of the child or children would be promoted by a change in custody.”
Establishes the two-prong legal standard required for custody modifications
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 in 1990, and their two children, Jill (age 15) and Trey (age 13), had lived with their father since 1992. In January 2001, t…
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 Temporary Custody Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
The father, Gillard S. Glover, appeals the trial court’s order temporarily changing custody of the parties’ children to their mother, Carol Wells Glover. The father contends that the trial court erred in temporarily changing custody because the evidence failed to establish a substantial change in circumstances and that the best interests of the children would be promoted by the change.
The parties were divorced in 1990. The parties’ two children, Jill, a daughter, age fifteen, and Trey, a son, age thirteen have lived with the father since 1992. In January, 2001, the mother filed an emergency motion for temporary custody, requesting custody of both children. While the mother’s emergency motion for temporary custody contained numerous allegations against the father, the allegations related almost exclusively to the father’s relationship with the parties’ daughter and her alleged preference to live with the mother. Whenever a parent seeks to modify a custody decree in a post-dissolution proceeding, that parent must prove by competent and substantial evidence, (i) a substantial change in circumstance and (ii) that the best interests of the child or children would be promoted by a change in custody. Fee v. Usier, 761 So. 2d 361, 364 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Wilson v. Roseberry, 669 So. 2d 1152, 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). This test applies whether the party seeks a temporary or permanent modification of custody after the entry .of the original final judgment. Schweinberg v. Click, 627 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered an order temporarily changing custody of the children from the father to the mother. The order contains detailed findings regarding Jill and her relationship with her father which are supported by competent, substantial evidence. Therefore, the two-prong test set forth above is satisfied as to Jill. However, the same cannot be said as to Trey. The order does not recite any reasons demonstrating why a change of custody is warranted as to him. While the evidence indicates that Trey is developmentally disabled and is very reliant on his older sister Jill, we cannot determine upon what basis the trial court found a substantial change in circumstances and how Trey’s best interests would be promoted by the temporary change in custody.1
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s temporary custody order as to Jill. However, we agree with the father that the order is insufficient as to Trey. We remand the matter to the trial court to enter appropriate findings of fact on the evidence in the record as to Trey. To the extent that the mother failed to carry, her evidentiary burden on the issues in controversy, she should not be permitted to benefit by the remand and receive a second opportunity to prove her case. Thus, our remand is for the limited purpose of making factual findings only as to those matters not addressed originally. See Parenteau v. Parenteau, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D2412 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct.5, 2001). Alternatively, the trial court may restore custody of Trey to the father. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REMANDED.
COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . We recognize that while courts generally prefer to keep siblings-together, there are exceptions when it is in the best interests of the children to be separated. See Griffith v. Griffith, 627 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); see also Reinhart v. Reinhart, 291 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clark v. Clark, 35 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…ddix v. Emret, 992 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Argamon v. Argamon, 949 So. 2d 266, 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Small v. Fluegel-Small, 943 So. 2d 897, 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Foster v. Pearson, 925 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Glover v. Glover, 820 So. 2d 324, 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“This test applies whether the party seeks a temporary or permanent modification of custody after the entry of the original final judgment.”); Wilson v. Roseberry, 669 So. 2d 1152, 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Schweinberg v. C…
-
Hastings v. Rigsbee, 875 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…rent would understand that maintaining the status quo would be detrimental to the child’s overall best interests.” Id. The extraordinary burden test applies whether the requested change of custody is tem [*779] porary or permanent. Glover v. Glover, 820 So. 2d 324, 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). In this case, there is no indication that the trial court even considered the order to be a change of custodial parent, much less applied the extraordinary burden test. Mr. Rigsbee’s motion requested a temporary suspension…
-
Wade v. Hirschman, 872 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…1). AFFIRMED. GRIFFIN and PLEUS, JJ., concur. .See Knipe v. Knipe, 840 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 849 So. 2d 1088 (Fla.2003); Wyckoff v. Wyckoff, 820 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 821 So. 2d 305 (Fla.2002); Glover v. Glover, 820 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Perez v. Perez, 767 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Greene v. Suhor, 783 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 796 So. 2d 538 (Fla.2001); Schweinberg v. Click, 627 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Zediker v. Zediker, 444 So. 2d…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wilson v. Blaine Alan Roseberry, 669 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Schweinberg v. Click, 627 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Guerrero v. State, 291 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- FEE v. Usler, 761 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Griffith v. Griffith, 627 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)