Guardianship of Wilkes, In re
| Decision Date | 28 January 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1069,86-1069 |
| Citation | Guardianship of Wilkes, In re, 501 So.2d 704, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 419 (Fla. App. 1987) |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 419 In re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Natalie Marie WILKES, a minor. Kevin WILKES, Appellant, v. Mary and Marshall CRUM, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Phillip E. Kuhn of Pobjecky & Kuhn, P.A., Winter Haven, for appellant.
James T. Joiner of James T. Joiner, P.A., Winter Haven, for appellees.
AppellantKevin Wilkes challenges the trial court's order granting custody and guardianship of his minor child, Natalie Marie Wilkes, to Marshal and Mary Crum.We agree the court erred.
Kevin Wilkes met Linda Tomanovich in Daytona Beach during March 1982, while he was serving in the United States Marine Corps.Thereafter, he continued to see her while on leave from Camp Lejuene, North Carolina.Natalie Marie Wilkes was born on June 10, 1983, the child of Linda Tomanovich and Kevin Wilkes.At the time of his daughter's birth, Wilkes was stationed at Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii.(During her pregnancy and for the first ten months of Natalie's life, Linda Tomanovich lived with her sister, Mary Crum, and brother-in-law, Marshall Crum, in Polk County, Florida.)After hearing of his daughter's birth, Wilkes returned to Florida on about June 16, 1983, to be with her and Linda Tomanovich; however, after thirty days, he was ordered to sea duty at his assigned duty station in Hawaii.
After Natalie's birth, Tomanovich began receiving support from Wilkes, and she was able to move into her own apartment.She arranged daytime care for Natalie, and the Crums took care of her during the evenings and weekends that Tomanovich worked.
Linda Tomanovich was killed in an automobile accident on May 9, 1985.Upon learning of her death, Wilkes obtained an early release from the Marine Corps and returned to Florida to be with his daughter.
The Crums filed a petition for appointment as guardians on May 30, 1985, and Wilkes filed an answer and cross-petition for appointment as guardian on June 5, 1985.The court entered an order appointing the Crums as temporary guardians and letters of guardianship issued to them on July 1, 1985.
An evidentiary hearing was held February 27, 1986, on the issue of appointment of a permanent guardian for Natalie.At the hearing the court reviewed a report by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services(HRS) that was submitted in evidence.The report found all parties would be suitable parents.The report, in the words of its author, was "very positive" toward Wilkes.It indicated that Wilkes was employed by B & L Appliance of St. Augustine and was planning to go into business for himself as a carpenter and handyman.It outlined that Wilkes' mother and stepfather were willing to assist him by providing as much support as necessary to help him develop the proper child rearing and parenting skills to successfully rear his daughter.Further, Wilkes' natural father also stated that he would assist his son in whatever manner necessary to care for Natalie.
The report revealed that all references and neighbors contacted were positive in regard to Wilkes' character and abilities.Thus, HRS concluded that Wilkes was "a capable and competent young man who is genuinely interested in the well-being of his natural daughter."Finally, the report noted that Wilkes had a viable plan for supervision in which his mother would be the primary caretaker and parenting role model.With her assistance, he could provide his child with a proper home environment and care.
During the hearing, Dr. Henry L. Dee, a child psychologist, testified that Natalie had formed a parent-child bond with the Crums.He opined that the loss of Natalie's natural mother, combined with the loss of the Crums as parental figures,...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Marriage of Matzen, In re
...of D.A. McW.; Paul v. Lusco, 530 So.2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), rev. den., 539 So.2d 475 (Fla.1989); In re Guardianship of Wilkes, 501 So.2d 704, 706 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We find sufficient evidence in the record demonstrating appellant has indeed rehabilitated himself. He has remarried and a......
-
In re NZB
...the children's sole natural or legal guardian.6See In re Guardianship of D.A. McW., 460 So.2d 368 (Fla.1984); In re Guardianship of Wilkes, 501 So.2d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Thus, we conclude that, under these unusual facts, the trial court erred when it enforced this addendum over the fath......
-
Richardson v. Richardson
...So.2d 368 (Fla.1984), Paul v. Lusco, 530 So.2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), rev. denied, 539 So.2d 475 (Fla.1989) and In re Guardianship of Wilkes, 501 So.2d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), for the principle that the best interest of the child standard is not applicable to a custody dispute between a pa......
-
Kent v. Burdick
...429 So.2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), approved, 460 So.2d 368 (Fla.1984); Sparks v. Reeves, 97 So.2d 18 (Fla.1957); In re Guardianship of Wilkes, 501 So.2d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Paul v. Lusco, 530 So.2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Significantly, the Burdicks' evidence does not even remotely sugg......