LATHA WISE AND ROY WISE, APPELLANTS,
v.
THOMAS L. BREWSTER, 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 maternal grandparents appealed a custody award granting their deceased daughter's child to the biological father. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that while the evidence could have supported either outcome, the chancellor was better positioned to weigh the facts and the father's custody award was not an abuse of discretion.
The court affirmed the chancellor's award of custody to the biological father, finding no abuse of discretion and that the chancellor was in the best position to determine custody based on the evidence presented.
“he found there was no just cause why the natural father, appellee, should not have the custody of his son”
The chancellor's stated basis for awarding custody to the biological father
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe mother and father were in process of divorce when their child was conceived. The final divorce decree was entered approximately six months before …
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 Guardianship Petition cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final decree awarding custody of a minor child to its father, the appellee herein, and against the appellants, the maternal grandparents.
The mother and father of the child were in process of divorce when the baby was conceived. Final decree of divorce was granted about six months before birth of baby, and no mention made in the decree as to the unborn child. The mother and her baby lived with her mother and stepfather, appellants here, and were so living when the mother was killed in an accident. This was in 1962. Thereafter, the father remarried. The appellants then filed petition for guardianship of the child. They tried to get ap-pellee to agree to adoption, which at first he agreed to consent to, but changed his mind.
Much evidence was taken by both parties. At the conclusion of the testimony, the chancellor entered its final decree wherein inter alia, he stated that he found there was no just cause why the natural father, appellee, should not have the custody of his son. Also he ordered the appellants to surrender the custody to the appellee, and entered a judgment against appellee for support paid by appellants in caring for the child and costs, except attorneys fees.
It is from this order that this appeal is made, and cross appeal as to the costs assessed against appellee.
From the evidence, we feel the chancellor could have awarded the custody of the child to the appellants or the appellee without committing error, the merits and demerits on each side being so nearly equal.
It appears to us that the chancellor had a difficult decision to make. The evidence tended to show that more mutual love and affection existed between the appellants and the baby than between the appellee and the *883baby, but that this was natural because of the close contacts between the appellants and the child, which had been denied the father, appellee, mostly because of circumstances not of his making. But, the chancellor, after weighing all the evidence and entertaining the respective argument of counsel, was in a better position to determine the case than we are on the facts and while we recognize there will be heartbreaks and suffering, at least for awhile, we can see no justification for this court to disturb the chancellor’s order as to the custody or the payments of money to be made. Therefore, the order appealed is affirmed in its entirety.
STURGIS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pape v. Pape, 444 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…5 Fla.Jr.2d, Family Law, § 525. Award of custody to the father, where the mother had died, although the child was closer to its maternal grandparents — through circumstances mostly not of the father’s making — was held not error in Wise v. Brewster, 179 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). This court has held that in the absence of evidence disclosing that the best interests of children warranted the “drastic remedy” of depriving their natural father of the right to rear his children in his home, the trial court e…
-
Besade v. Besade, 312 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…en. In the absence of a finding that the natural parents are unfit, strangers (even grandparents) may not be awarded the permanent custody of children where the natural parents have not relinquished their rights. See Wise v. Brewster, Fla.App. 1965, 179 So. 2d 882, and cf. Hart v. Howell, 154 Fla. 878, 19 So. 2d 317 (1944). We further point out that the court in this instance awarded custody to persons who were not before the court and that the proper procedure for a change of custody from the parents to thi…
-
Wise v. Brewster, 184 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1966)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 179 So. 2d 882.…