Adams v. Adams, 79-1982
| Decision Date | 17 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1982,79-1982 |
| Citation | 385 So.2d 688 |
| Parties | Martha Sue ADAMS, Appellant, v. James K. ADAMS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Pennington, Wilkinson, Gary & Dunlap and Everett P. Anderson, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Ferrell & Ferrell and Milton M. Ferrell, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ and DANIEL PEARSON, JJ., and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Ret.), Associate Judge.
A final judgment of dissolution, rendered in 1975, awarded custody of the parties' then three-year-old son to the mother, Martha Sue Adams. At the time of the dissolution of the marriage, the father conceded "that custody would be best had with the mother." Mr. Adams, subsequently remarried, and in 1979 moved to modify the final judgment of dissolution, requesting that he be awarded custody of the child. 1
The parties agreed that the evidence to be submitted on the motion to modify would be restricted to written reports prepared at the trial court's request by Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services representatives. Essentially, the report of the Tallahassee caseworker concluded that the environment which the mother was providing was "positive, satisfying (and) love filled." The Miami caseworker, who had not seen the child or the mother and had not observed the environment in which the child was being raised, concluded from an interview of the father and his newly-taken wife that the "father has as much, if not more, to offer in terms of love and emotional and material stability." 2 Based upon these reports, the trial court ordered that custody be changed.
The presumption of correctness which attaches to a ruling of a trial court 3 made upon written reports is slight. 4 In such an instance, as here, an appellate court has the same opportunity as the trial court to determine the probative force and legal effect of the written record.
A custody order can only be modified upon a showing that there has been a substantial and material change in the parties' circumstances since the entry of the prior custody award, and that the best interests and welfare of the child will be promoted by a change of custody. Bennett v. Bennett, 73 So.2d 274 (Fla.1954); Belford v. Belford, 159 Fla. 547, 32 So.2d 312 (1947); Jones v. Jones, 156 Fla. 524, 23 So.2d 623 (1945); Ritsi v. Ritsi, 160 So.2d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Sanders v. Sanders, 376 So.2d 880 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Garner v. Garner, 193 So.2d 673 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). When a change of custody is sought, a trial court has considerably less discretion, and such a change must be supported by substantial evidence. Bennett v. Bennett, supra; Belford v. Belford, supra; Tash v. Oesterle, 356 So.2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Frye v. Frye, 205 So.2d 310 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). Neither the husband's remarriage nor his increased material wealth constitutes a change in circumstances sufficient to justify modification of custody. Anderson v. Anderson, 309 So.2d 1 (Fla.1975); Belford v. Belford, supra; Ritsi v. Ritsi, supra; Wilson v. Condra, 255 So.2d 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971).
Applying these principles to the present case, and upon our independent review of the written reports which formed the basis for the trial court's decision, we hold that there was not substantial evidence to support a finding that the parties' circumstances had materially changed and that the best interests and welfare of the child would be promoted by a change of custody. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court changing the custody of the child from the mother to the father with directions to reinstate the visitation rights of the father and his obligation to make child support payments to the mother.
Reversed.
1 Mrs. Adams, who by then lived in Tallahassee with the child, moved for a change of venue, and being denied that relief, appealed to this court. We affirmed the trial court. See Adams v. Adams, 374 So.2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
2 There was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perez v. Perez, 3D99-2182.
...So.2d 1117. See also Jones v. Jones, 156 Fla. 524, 23 So.2d 623 (1945); Brush v. Brush, 414 So.2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Adams v. Adams, 385 So.2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). But see Goodman v. Goodman, 291 So.2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA In Grumney v. Haber, 641 So.2d 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), and Kelly ......
-
Zediker v. Zediker
...782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Stricklin v. Stricklin, 383 So.2d at 1184; Garvey v. Garvey, 383 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Adams v. Adams, 385 So.2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Baker v. Baker, 360 So.2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Robinson v. Robinson, 333 So.2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Nicholson v. Ni......
-
Hunter v. Hunter
...Bragassa v. Bragassa, 505 So.2d 556, 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Wilson v. Wilson, 504 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Adams v. Adams, 385 So.2d 688, 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The court's discretion to modify custody is more limited than is its discretion in the initial determination and must be ......
-
Martinez v. Martinez
...1st DCA 1975), opinion modified, 327 So.2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Brush v. Brush, 414 So.2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Adams v. Adams, 385 So.2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). II. Specification of a Particular The final judgment ordered that both children remain at the Creative Learning Center (CLC),......
-
Marriage dissolution
...v. Bragassa , 505 So. 2d 556, 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Accor d, Wilson v. Wilso n, 504 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Adams v. Adams , 385 So. 2d 688, 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).] “The court’s discretion to modify custody is more limited than is its discretion in the initial determination and ......
-
Toward a more "convenient" standard of review in cases involving forum non conveniens issues.
...See generally id. at Ch. 18. (9) Id. [section][section] 18:3-18:4, at 338-45. (10) Id. [section] 18:6, at 353-58; but see Adams v. Adams, 385 So. 2d 688,689 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1980) ("The presumption of correctness which attaches to a ruling of a trial court made upon written reports is slight......