Hindle v. Fuith
| Decision Date | 23 April 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D08-3850.,5D08-3850. |
| Citation | 33 So.3d 782 |
| Parties | Karl Ernest HINDLE, Appellant,v.Sheila Kay FUITH, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Karl Ernest HINDLE, Appellant,
v.
Sheila Kay FUITH, Appellee.
No. 5D08-3850.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fifth District.
April 23, 2010.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
C. Kim Banister, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
ORFINGER, J.
The father, Karl E. Hindle, appeals a final judgment of paternity, which determined that Florida courts have jurisdiction over the custody dispute concerning the parties' eight-year-old daughter; granted custody of the child to the mother, Sheila K. Fuith; ordered monthly child support; and placed the burden of visitation costs entirely on the father. We find that the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination and acted within its discretion in granting custody to the mother. However, we reverse as to the child support and visitation costs.
Subject matter jurisdiction over child custody matters is governed by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), sections 61.502 to 61.542, Florida Statutes (2003).1 See Arjona v. Torres, 941 So.2d 451, 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). One of the stated purposes of the UCCJEA is to “[a]void jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other states in matters of child custody.” § 61.502(1), Fla. Stat. (2003). Under the UCCJEA, a foreign country is treated “as if it were a state of the United States” for purposes of applying the provisions of the UCCJEA. § 61.506(1), Fla. Stat. (2003). A Florida court has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination if Florida “is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding.” § 61.514(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003).2 “Home state” is defined in relevant part as “the state in which a child lived with a parent or person acting as a parent for at least 6 consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.... A period of temporary absence of any of the mentioned persons is part of the period.” § 61.503(7), Fla. Stat. (2003).
The UCCJEA gives jurisdictional priority to the child's home state. Arjona, 941 So.2d at 455. However, the UCCJEA grants an exception to the home state jurisdictional
On the date that the paternity action was commenced in this case, Florida was not the “home state” of the child because the child had not lived in Florida for six consecutive months prior to the commencement of the paternity action in November 2003. § 61.503(7), Fla. Stat. (2003). However, no other state had jurisdiction since the mother and the child had lived in several states in the six months prior to their arrival in Florida and the commencement of the paternity action. § 61.514(1)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. (2003). As a result, because no court of any other state would have had jurisdiction under section 61.514, the Florida trial court had jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination.
In making an initial custody determination, the trial court must evaluate the non-inclusive factors listed in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, and determine the best interests of the child. See § 61.13, Fla. Stat. (2008); Fuller v. Fuller, 13 So.3d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); see Burgess v. Burgess, 347 So.2d 1078, 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (stating that polestar for guidance in custody proceedings is best interests of child). However, there is no statutory requirement that the trial court make specific written findings in a custody decision. See Adair v. Adair, 720 So.2d 316, 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Murphy v. Murphy, 621 So.2d 455, 456-57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Thus, a final judgment is not erroneous simply for failing to list the factors on which it relied in making its determination. Aguirre v. Aguirre, 985 So.2d 1203, 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
Here, the court found that it was in the best interest of the child that the mother have primary residential custody. A finding that primary residential custody is in the “best interests” of the child, whether made in the final judgment or at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v. McQueen
...Child Support and Attorney Fees” and is dated October 27, 2011. The paternity action only involved one child. 2.See also Hindle v. Fuith, 33 So.3d 782, 786 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (“In making an award of child support, the trial court is required to determine the net income of each parent pursu......
-
Stone v. Suzuki
...So. 2d 451, 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (same). "The UCCJEA gives jurisdictional priority to the child's home state." 3 Hindle v. Fuith, 33 So. 3d 782, 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citing Arjona, 941 So. 2d at 455 ). "[T]he issue of whether the Florida circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction u......
-
Eflanli v. Eflanli
...that subsection (1) of statute is “exclusive jurisdictional basis” for making child custody determination); see also Hindle v. Fuith, 33 So.3d 782, 784 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 42 So.3d 233 (Fla.), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 825, 178 L.Ed.2d 557 (2010). The statute provide......
-
Holub v. Holub
...court's exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to sections 61.514(1)(a), 61.514(1)(b), and 61.503(7), Florida Statutes. Hindle v. Fuith, 33 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (child resided in several states during six months prior to commencement of the action, no court of any other state would hav......
-
Mental-Health Issues in Florida Family Law.
...for payment of the timesharing supervisor's charges and remanding for treatment of the expense as child support); Hindle v. Fuith, 33 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (holding that travel expenses are child-rearing expenses to be shared by the parties pursuant to their financial means as refl......