STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. RONO A. PRINCE, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD BETTNER AND ELIZABETH BETTNER, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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 Florida father sought habeas corpus relief to obtain custody of his minor children from their maternal grandparents, who were caring for them in Miami pursuant to a Texas divorce decree awarding custody to the mother. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the mother's custodial rights and discharged the writ.
The court discharged the writ and dismissed the petition, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the mother's custodial rights established by the Texas divorce decree, particularly where the mother (not a party to the action) was the one who removed the children from Florida.
“In any event, the mother of the children has their custody in New York at this time. Under the decree of the Texas Court granting the divorce, she is entitled to it. Maybe that she has done something to forfeit her right to the custody of the children, but that cannot be assumed. She is not a party to this case. This Court has no jurisdiction over her”
Establishes that the Florida court lacked jurisdiction over the mother and could not interfere with her custodial rights granted by the Texas divorce decree
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant-father and mother were divorced in Texas, with the mother awarded custody of the minor children. The mother left the children in Miami w…
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 Jurisdiction Over Non-Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant-father brought a petition for habeas corpus seeking custody of his minor children. The father and the mother had been divorced in the State of Texas, and the mother was granted custody. She left the children in Miami, Florida, with their maternal grandparents. The appellant-father’s petition was served upon these grandparents having custodial control of the children. Such control was without local authority.
The trial judge discharged the writ and dismissed the petition with the following finding:
“When the Writ of Habeas Corpus was issued in this case to the Bettners, they had the actual custody of the children. The Writ was properly served, giving this Court jurisdiction and it was binding on them. That jurisdiction could not be defeated by taking the children beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, so the Court did not lose jurisdiction by reason of their removal. It had jurisdiction to inquire into the cause of their detention. That jurisdiction could not be affected by spiriting them out of the state by the respondents, but the respondents did not do so. The mother, who had the lawful custody of the children, apparently thought so and acted on that belief. Now it may be admitted that the Court was tricked. The Court is certain that the grandparents or one of them communicated with the mother of the children and advised her that the Writ of Habeas Corpus had issued requiring them to appear before the Court at a time certain and show cause why they deprived the petitioner of the custody of the children, but that begs the question. The respondents did not do anything in an attempt to deprive the Court of its jurisdiction, unless they *562communicated with the mother and advised her what was going on (and they or one of them probably did) but they deny it and it hasn’t been proved.
“In any event, the mother of the children has their custody in New York at this time. Under the decree of the Texas Court granting the divorce, she •is entitled to it. Maybe that she has done something to forfeit her right to ■the custody of the children, but that ■cannot be assumed. - She is not a party to this case. This Court has no jurisdiction over her and if the Court found the respondents in contempt and punished them for it, the Order would probably be reversed.
“The Writ of Habeas Corpus is discharged.”
Affirmed.