REYNALDO CASTILLO, APPELLANT,
v.
ASHLEY CASTILLO, 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.
Father appeals the trial court's designation of mother as primary residential parent in a dissolution of marriage. The appellate court affirms, holding that the trial court's custody decision was supported by competent substantial evidence and that no written findings were required.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Although the court did not make specific written findings analyzing the section 61.13 factors, it stated that it had considered those criteria and concluded the mother should be primary residential parent. No written findings are required in custody decisions. The decision is affirmed because competent substantial evidence supported it.
[1] A trial court's child custody determination is reviewed for a clear showing of an abuse of discretion.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion in child custody matters only when no reasonable person would adopt the trial court's view.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Decisions affecting child custody require a careful consideration of the best interests of the child.”
Establishes the fundamental standard governing custody determinations under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the trial court designated the mother as the primary residential parent of the parties' child. The father app…
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 Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
In the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the court designated the mother as the primary residential parent. The father appeals, claiming that the court did not carefully consider the applicable statutory factors and that its decision was not supported by competent substantial evidence. Because there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court, and there is no requirement that the trial court make specific written findings in a custody decision, we affirm.
The trial court exercises broad discretion in making a child custody determination, and its decision is reviewed for a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Adair v. Adair, 720 So. 2d 316, 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Under this standard, a trial court abuses its discretion only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980). “Decisions affecting child custody require a careful consideration of the best interests of the child.” Andrews v. Andrews, 624 So. 2d 391, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2005). However, section 61.13(3) does not require the trial court to make specific written findings in a custody decision. See Murphy v. Murphy, 621 So. 2d 455, 456-57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
In this case, while the trial court did not make specific written findings regarding its analysis of the factors of section 61.13, the trial court stated that it had considered the criteria of section 61.13 and concluded that the mother should be the primary residential parent. The trial court, as the finder of fact, weighed disputed evidence and made credibility determinations. There was competent, substantial evidence to support its determination, although the evidence was conflicting. We will not disturb its decision simply because the losing party takes a different view of disputed evidence. See Adair, 720 So. 2d at 317 (“Despite a conflict in the evidence, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s custody decision unless there is no substantial competent evidence to support that decision.”).
Affirmed.
GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Witt-Bahls v. Bahls, 193 So. 3d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…ly employee was responsible for. “Such a significant expansion ... is better left to the legislature to consider.” Id. II. Steps Required to Reestablish Contact Timesharing determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion, Castillo v. Castillo, 950 So. 2d 527, 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). “ ‘Discretion ... is abused when the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only where no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial co…
-
Winters v. Brown, 51 So. 3d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…t erred in awarding substantial time-sharing to Mother. An appellate court reviews a trial court’s child custody determination for an abuse of discretion. See Buccini v. Sonara, 989 So. 2d 1288, 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citing Castillo v. Castillo, 950 So. 2d 527, 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)). “Decisions affecting child custody require a careful consideration of the best interests of the child.” Id. (citation omitted). An appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s custody decision unless there is no subs…
-
Peacock v. Peacock, 973 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…plain in its final judgment the nature of its considerations as to the several factors of section 61.13(3). The former wife argues that this was error. We disagree. Section 61.13(3) does not mandate written findings, see Castillo v. Castillo, [*502] 950 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); cf. Velazquez v. Millan, 963 So. 2d 852, 854-55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), and the record contains substantial competent evidence in support of the court’s decision. See Rodriguez v. Williams, 911 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Miller…
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
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Adair v. Adair, 720 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Murphy v. Murphy, 621 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Andrews v. Andrews, 624 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)