SARA ARGAMON, APPELLANT,
v.
SHLOMO ARGAMON, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a temporary visitation order extending the father's time with children, holding that such orders constitute temporary custody changes requiring findings of substantial change of circumstances and best interests of the children, which the trial court failed to make.
A temporary order extending visitation pending modification constitutes a temporary change of custody requiring findings of substantial change of circumstances and best interests of the children.
[1] A temporary order extending a parent's visitation pending disposition of a modification petition constitutes a temporary change of custody and requires findings of substa…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 order is in effect a temporary change of custody which requires a finding of a substantial change of circumstances and a finding that the change of custody is in the best interests of the children”
Court's statement of the legal standard applicable to temporary visitation orders
The former husband sought modification of custody and the trial court extended his visitation pending disposition of that petition based on testimony …
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
PER CURIAM.
The former wife appeals a temporary order extending the former husband’s visitation with his children pending the disposition of the former husband’s petition for modification. We conclude that the order is in effect a temporary change of custody which requires a finding of a substantial change of circumstances and a finding that the change of custody is in the best interests of the children. See Kendall v. Kendall, 832 So. 2d 878, 879-80 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); McGlamry v. McGlamry, 608 So. 2d 553, 554-55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The trial court did not make these findings in its order. Although the court found that the former husband showed that the children would be at substantial risk of harm should they be returned to their mother, the testimony supporting that finding involved a domestic violence incident between the former wife and her parents which did not take place in the presence of the children. Further, there was no evidence presented of any connection between the incident and any harm or risk to the children. All that was presented is the possibility of a negative impact on the children, which is insufficient to change custody. See Burger v. Burger, 862 So. 2d 828, 832-33 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
We reverse the order and remand for further proceedings which may include the bringing of a motion for a temporary change in custody based upon the correct criteria.
WARNER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clark v. Clark, 35 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…mplated when the previous order was entered; and 2) the requested change of custody is in the best interests of the child. Mesibov v. Mesibov, 16 So. 3d 890 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Haddix 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…
Authorities Cited
- McGLAMRY v. McGLAMRY, 608 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Cheri Marie Burger v. Burger, 862 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Kendall v. Kendall, 832 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)