Fincham v. Levin
| Citation | 155 So.2d 883 |
| Decision Date | 05 September 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. E-127,E-127 |
| Parties | Charles Harvey FINCHAM, Sr., Appellant, v. Elsie Witt LEVIN, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Frank C. Decker, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., William A. Hallowes, 3rd, State Atty., and Frank M. Scruby, Asst. State Atty., for appellee.
The defendant father of a 25-year-old girl seeks reversal of an order of support entered pursuant to Chapter 88, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., known as the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Law. The child has never been married, since birth has been an epileptic, is mentally and physically unable to care for or support herself, is in need of medical treatment, and has at all times lived with and been under the care of her mother, the appellee, who was divorced from appellant some years past.
The mother filed her petition under the Virginia act (Title 20, Chapter 5.2, Code of Virginia) in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Richmond County, Virginia, praying for an order of support directed to appellant requiring him to contribute to the support of his natural child, Harriet Harvey Fincham, who was born, january 15, 1938, and who is a resident of Virginia. Following the statutory procedure, the Virginia court entered the required certificate and caused all pertinent papers, evidence and pleadings to be filed in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, whereupon pursuant to the Florida act (Chapter 88, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.) appellant was served with process and brought before the Duval County court. Upon hearing the evidence and related matters adduced by bothe parties, the Circuit Court of Duval County entered an order requiring appellant to pay $40 per month for the support and maintenance of said child, hence this appeal.
The sole point of law for determination is whether or not the father is obligated to support or contribute to the support and maintenance of his natural child who is over the age of 21 years, has not been married, lives with her mother, and from birth has been mentally and physically unable to support or care for herself. The point does not appear to have been directly decided by the case law of Florida, and we have no controlling statute. In Perla v. Perla, 58 So.2d 689 (Fla.1952), we find the following obiter dicta:
'Generally, the obligation of a parent to support a child ceases when the child reaches majority,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
James G. v. Caserta, s. CC944
... ... 20 The following cases deal generally with the rule that parents are required to support a disabled child beyond his age of majority. Finchame rule that parents are required to support a disabled child beyond his age of majority. Fincham v. Levin ... ...
- Ravenstein v. Ravenstein
-
Christopher v. Christopher (In re Christopher.)
...the Court stated: “[W]e believe the legislature intended that support be provided for dependent children....” Id. See Fincham v. Levin, 155 So.2d 883, 884 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1963) (finding that “most jurisdictions hold that where a child is of weak body or mind, unable to care for itself afte......
-
Parrish v. Parrish, Docket No. 70781
... ... Diamant, 378 Mass. 131, 389 N.E.2d 998 (1979) (recognizing this principle); McBride v. Lomheim, 82 S.D. 263, 144 N.W.2d 564 (1966); Fincham v. Levin, 155 So.2d 883 (Fla.App.1963); Maitzen v. Maitzen, 24 Ill.App.2d 32, 163 N.E.2d 840 (1959); Zakrocki v. Zakrocki, 115 Ind.App. 556, 60 ... ...