MARYANN AVEDON, APPELLANT,
v.
ARNOLD AVEDON, 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 mother appeals a post-judgment order modifying a custody award in her favor, granted in a 1962 divorce, to award custody to the father. The appellate court affirmed the trial judge's custody modification, finding no abuse of the higher discretionary standard required to modify an existing custody judgment.
The trial judge did not abuse the higher standard of discretion required to modify an existing custody judgment. The order modifying custody from the mother to the father was affirmed.
“a trial judge does not have the same degree of discretion to change a judgment with regard to custody as he has to make the original award”
Establishes the heightened standard required to modify existing custody awards, cited from Belford v. Belford
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were divorced in 1962 with the mother (appellant) awarded custody of their daughter, Wendy Jo. In August 1967, the father petitioned to mo…
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 Modification Of Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a post-judgment order of the circuit court granting the ap-pellee father custody of a daughter of the parties. The appellant mother had been given custody of the daughter in the final judgment of divorce entered in 1962. On August 17, 1967, the father petitioned the court to modify the final judgment by awarding custody of the daughter to him. On August 23, 1967, the court entered an order granting appellee’s petition for custody. Thereafter a petition for rehearing was filed and rehearing granted. After extensive hearings the court on December 8, 1967, entered the order now appealed from. This order affirmed the change in custody and specifically provided :
“1. The defendant, ARNOLD AVE-DON, shall be, and he is hereby vested with the custody of the minor child of the parties hereto, WENDY JO AVE-DON, until the end of the school year, June, 1968. At that time the Court will re-evaluate the condition of the child and will enter such other and further orders as it deems appropriate concerning the welfare of the child. If there is not an appreciable improvement of the present frightening condition of the child, at that time appropriate action will be taken to reinvest plaintiff with custody.”
After several motions and orders relative to the preparation of the record and a great many stipulations extending the time for the filing of briefs, this appeal came on for oral argument before this court on September 30, 1969.1 It is apparent that the time covered by the trial judge’s order providing for a limited period of custody has long since expired. We do not think that any great benefit will be accomplished by a lengthy discussion of the five points presented upon appeal.
The Supreme Court has held that a trial judge does not have the same degree of discretion to change a judgment with regard to custody as he has to make the original award. Belford v. Belford, 159 Fla. 547, 32 So.2d 312 (1947). A review of this record convinces us that in entering the order appealed from the trial judge did not abuse this higher standard for the exercise of his discretion. Cf. Klein v. Klein, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 239.
No reversible error having been demonstrated under any of appellant’s points, the order appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Belford v. Belford, 159 Fla. 547 (Fla. 1947)
- Klein v. Klein, 204 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)