Fields v. Fields

• Decision Date: 02 August 1940
• Citation: Fields v. Fields, 143 Fla. 886, 197 So. 530 (Fla. 1940)
• Parties: FIELDS v. FIELDS.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

197 So. 530

143 Fla. 886

FIELDS v. FIELDS.

Florida Supreme Court

August 2, 1940

Suit by Eula Fields against L. T. Fields, Jr., for a divorce. From a decree granting a divorce but awarding custody of minor children to defendant's father, until further order of the court, the plaintiff appeals.

Decree amended. Appeal from Circuit Court, Bay County Ira A. Hutchison, judge.

COUNSEL

Thomas Sale, of Panama City, for appellant.

J. M. &amp H. P. Sapp and A. M. Douglas, all of Panama City, for appellee.

OPINION

THOMAS Justice.

Concluding a suit for divorce by the wife against the husband, the chancellor entered a decree granting the relief sought and disposed of the care and custody of three small children of the parties now aged three, five and seven years, respectively, by awarding them to the husband's father, until further order of the court, with permission for the mother to visit them without interference on the part of the husband.

Inasmuch as no complaint is made of the provisions of the final order except those dealing with the issue of the union, we will ignore its other features.

A considerable portion of the briefs is devoted to a discussion of the comparative worth of the paternal grandparents of the children and their mother's relations, with whom she resides, and of their relative financial condition, but our main concern is the moral stability of the parents to properly rear their offspring and their financial ability to discharge this obligation.

The adjudication in favor of the complainant who charged her husband with extreme cruelty did not place upon him the stigma of unfitness to enjoy the association of his daughters and son, nor did the testimony of epithets applied to the husband by the wife before their separation mark her as morally incapable of the upbringing and companionship of the children she bore or unable to meet the responsibility for which nature prepared her.

While we have said that the 'welfare [of children] becomes paramount to that of the comforts, desires, and welfare of either or both of the parents' (Kennedy v Kennedy, 101 Fla. 239, 245, 134 So. 201, 203) we have also held that 'The statutes of this state recognize the natural, inherent, and consequently legal, right of parents to have the custody of their children.' Frazier v. Frazier, 109 Fla. 164, 168, 147 So. 464, 466. It was further stated in Kennedy v. Kennedy, supra that to this paramount consideration for the well-being of the child the rights and wishes of the parents will not be subordinated unless the latter are 'opposed' to the former.

The financial worth of persons, other than the parents, to whom children may be awarded is important only when it appears that the parents themselves are unable to provide the necessities of life and prevent their children from becoming the objects of charity and a charge upon the community.

The matter of custody cannot be placed upon any of the bases welfare of the children, financial worth of the ones seeking their custody or desires of the parents, without some regard for the others. For instance, if the decision were to be based alone on comparative wealth of parents and others being considered for the award, or on the welfare of the infant, custody could be taken from parents rich in affection but poor in worldly goods and placed with others favored because more...