Jones v. Jones
| Decision Date | 02 November 1945 |
| Citation | 156 Fla. 524,23 So.2d 623 |
| Parties | JONES v. JONES. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
W. Wallace Shafer and Mark O'Quin, both of Lakeland for petitioner.
George W Safford, of Lakeland, for respondent.
Elise Coursey Jones obtained a decree of divorce from her husband, Reed Jones, on June 29, 1943. By the terms of the decree the wife was awarded the permanent care, custody and control of the minor children of the parties with the privilege accorded the husband of visiting the children at all reasonable times, and with the duty imposed upon him of paying the sum of $10 weekly for their support until the further order of the court. On September 10, 1945, on petition, answer and testimony, the chancellor modified the final decree so far as it related to the children, by an order decreeing a divided custody of the children between the parents. We are asked to review this order of the chancellor.
The evidence upon which the modification order was based is brief. In substance it is as follows: Neither of the parties to the divorce suit has remarried since the entry of the original decree. The children involved are a boy and girl, ages six and four respectively. Elise Coursey Jones, the former wife, has been making her home with her sister and brother-in-law at Lakeland, Fla. Reed Jones, the former husband, has been living in Daytona Beach, Fla., in a one-room apartment. Mrs Jones has been working in a restaurant in Lakeland owned by her sister. Her working hours are from 10 o'clock in the morning to 8 o'clock in the evening, six days a week. Her average weekly earnings are $25. Reed Jones is employed by a bus company at Daytona Beach as a ticket agent. His working hours are from midnight until 8 o'clock in the morning, seven days a week. His monthly salary is $120. For the period of about two years that has intervened between the entry of the final decree and the proceedings brought here for review, Reed Jones has made no attempt to see or visit with the children. The evidence is in conflict as to whether or not he has kept up the weekly payments required by the decree to be made for the maintenance and support of his children.
In June, 1945, Mrs Jones placed her children in a boarding school at Tampa, Fla. She did this for the reason that she felt that at the school they would receive the type of attention and training that she could not give them in full measure while working. At the time of their enrollment at the school there was an express understanding between Mrs. Jones and the school authorities that both parents should have the privilege of visiting the children at such reasonable times as would not interfere with their training. At the school the children are given kindly and sympathetic supervision and training. They are fed well and have regular nap and rest periods. The eldest child is given schooling. From her own earnings and from such support money as is sent her by the father, Mrs. Jones pays the school a fee of $50 monthly and furnishes the children their clothing and outside incidentals. Mrs. Jones visits the children every week end and on holidays. Occasionally she takes them home with her for week ends. Mr. Jones objects to the children being in a boarding school, where it is impossible for them to receive daily parental care and affection. He asks the court to take them from the custody of the mother and place them with him at Daytona Beach, where he proposes to establish them in his one-room apartment and hire someone to stay with them while he is at work. Mrs. Jones objects to such an arrangement, and is willing to take the children out of the school and keep them with her at Lakeland, should the court think such move desirous.
The modification order brought here for review finds that both parents are persons of excellent character and habits; that if the mother were not obliged to work she would be a fit nd proper person to have the custody of the children; that the father is an equally fit person and has an unusual consideration for the happiness of the children. The decree of the court is that the children shall be kept and raised together with the responsibility for their rearing to rest equally upon both parents; that the father shall have custody of the children for the school term beginning in the fall of 1945 but shall deliver them to the mother at Lakeland for one week end out of each month of the school year; that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perez v. Perez, 3D99-2182.
...357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Sanders v. Sanders, 376 So.2d 880 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. den. 388 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. Goodma......
-
Borges v. Borges
...one basis for modification of the custody decree. Frazier v. Frazier, 109 Fla. (164), p. 168, 147 So. (464), p. 465; Jones v. Jones, 156 Fla. 524, 527, 23 So.2d 623, 625. But the power is not so restricted. It was held in Meadows v. Meadows, 78 Fla. 576, 83 So. 392--393, that 'the proper cu......
-
Laughton v. Laughton
...and control.' 'See also Gedney v. Gedney, 117 Fla. 686, 158 So. 288; Phillips v. Phillips, 153 Fla. 133, 13 So.2d 922; and Jones v. Jones, 156 Fla. 524, 23 So.2d 623. 'It appears that probably the Chancellor considered this matter in the same light as it would have been considered by him ha......
-
McIntyre v. McIntyre, AN-449
...of custody is essential for their welfare. Phillips v. Phillips, supra; Hart v. Howell, 154 Fla. 878, 19 So.2d 317; Jones v. Jones [156 Fla. 524, 23 So.2d 623], supra. Compare Dobbs v. Kelly, Fla.1949, 39 So.2d 479, and Prevatt v. Penny, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 537, which show examples of t......