CATHY ELIZABETH CHASTAIN, APPELLANT,
v.
THELMON BERNARD CHASTAIN, 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 court affirmed a trial court's one-year temporary modification of child custody from mother to father, finding sufficient evidence supported the change and declining to hold the temporary restriction an abuse of discretion.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion by modifying custody temporarily for one year with a provision for future review, even when evidence would support a permanent change.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by imposing a temporary custody modification with a provision for future review rather than making the modification permanent,…
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 intelligenceThe mother of an eight-year-old child appealed a custody modification order that transferred custody from her to the father for one year with a provis…
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, the mother of Clay Chastain, eight years of age, appeals an order of the trial court modifying the custody provision of the final judgment of divorce. The order of modification changes custody from the appellant mother to the appellee father for a period of one year and provides that “the court shall review the question of child custody on or after June 1,1979, upon filing of appropriate application and notice of hearing by either party.” The appellee has cross-appealed, urging that the trial judge erred in not making the modification permanent.
The record is replete with evidence supportive of the change of custody. That evidence is clearly sufficient to have supported a permanent change. Although the purpose of restricting the modification of custody to a period of one year and providing in the order for a review thereafter is unclear to us, we are not prepared to hold at this time that such constitutes an abuse of discretion. Whether or not another hearing will in fact be held in accordance with the reservation in the order here sought to be reviewed, what the evidence will then reveal as to the best interest of the child and the trial court’s decision then are matters upon which we will not now speculate.
AFFIRMED.
McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MELVIN, JJ., concur.