Lee v. Kepler

Citation197 So.2d 570
Decision Date11 April 1967
Docket NumberNo. 66--512,66--512
PartiesRobert M. LEE, Appellant, v. Hazel KEPLER, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

Chesley V. Morton, Ft. Lauderdale, Ernest W. Yocom, Miami, for appellant.

Helen Tanos Hope, Miami, Richard H. W. Maloy, Coral Gables, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

CHARLES CARROLL, Judge.

The appellant Robert M. Lee seeks reversal of an order finding him guilty of willful disobedience of a child visitation order, and sentencing him to be confined in the Dade County jail for a period of 10 days.

The appellant and Marilyn Frances Lee were divorced by a decree of the circuit court in Dade County on March 27, 1962. By that decree the custody of their child, Timothy Lee then two years of age, was granted to the mother. She died on January 25, 1963. The father promptly assumed custody of the child, and on February 12, 1963, moved in the divorce suit for modification of the decree to award him the custody. His motion was granted by an order entered on May 29, 1963. The order recited that the father had remarried and was residing in Broward County; that he had allowed visitation of the child with the maternal grandmother, the appellee Hazel Kepler; that from March 13 to May 28, 1963, the grandmother's attorney had withdrawn and kept possession of the court file of the divorce suit; that on an occasion when the grandmother had received the child for a visit on May 22, 1963, she had on that date applied for and obtained, without notice, an order of a judge of the Dade County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court which awarded her 'temporary custody;' and that no order had been made by the Dade County circuit court transferring jurisdiction of the divorce cause to the Dade County juvenile court as to custody of the child or otherwise.

In the order of the circuit court dated May 29, 1963, it was further recited that the father's motion was heard 'on notice to counsel for the maternal grandparent, Hazel Kepler, and upon the sworn testimony of the natural father' and upon review of the pleadings in the Dade County juvenile court and the order of that court entered May 22, 1963. The order thereupon entered by the circuit court, in effect, countermanded the Dade County juvenile court's order, awarded custody of the child to his father and directed that the child be delivered over to him. That order contained no provision for visitation.

Approximately a year later the maternal grandmother filed a motion in the divorce suit seeking to have the divorce decree further modified to grant her visitation rights. On March 9, 1964, her motion was allowed, and the decree was modified to provide that she was granted visitation rights to have the child in her home or elsewhere for 30 hours every other week end, with a provision that such periods of visitation, if not agreed upon, were to be from noon on Saturdays to 6:00 o'clock P.M. on Sundays. That order also enjoined the father from removing the child 'outside the jurisdiction of this Court 1 without further order of this Court.'

On March 4, 1966, the maternal grandmother filed in the divorce suit a petition for the issuance of a rule to show cause against the father, alleging that he had denied the visitation on the week end of February 12, 1966, and had announced intention to deny such visitation thereafter. The rule was issued, and made returnable April 21, 1966. The jurisdiction of the circuit court of Dade County to issue a rule to show cause to a person not within the county and who was residing in another circuit, as a means of enforcing a provision of the divorce decree, was not challenged by the father, who responded thereto.

In the response to the rule, filed on behalf of the father by his Broward County attorneys, he submitted, as the reason for denying the visitation, that his wife had sought and obtained from the circuit court in Broward County a decree of adoption as the step-mother of the child, reciting the number of the Broward County adoption cause and the date of the adoption decree, July 22, 1964; that objections filed by the grandmother to the adoption were expressly rejected by the adoption decree, which further provided 'that all persons claiming any right or privileges concerning any of the minor children 2 be and the same are forever barred, from asserting or enforcing any such right.'

In his response the father further alleged that despite the adoption decree he and his wife voluntarily had continued to allow the child to visit with the grandmother as before, but had decided against allowing the child to be taken away from its home for such visits after seeking...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Von Eiff v. Azicri, 96-3273
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 17, 1997
    ...of parent and child to the same extent as though the child had been born to such parent in lawful wedlock."); Lee v. Kepler, 197 So.2d 570, 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) ("The result of the adoption by the stepmother 'was to place the adopted child as far as possible in the same position as the na......
  • Adoption of Francisco A., Matter of
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • November 29, 1993
    ...re Marriage of Herreras, 159 Ariz. 511, 768 P.2d 673 (Ct.App.1989); Poe v. Case, 263 Ark. 488, 565 S.W.2d 612 (1978); Lee v. Kepler, 197 So.2d 570 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1967); In re Visitation of Menzie, 469 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind.Ct.App.1984); Browning v. Tarwater, 215 Kan. 501, 524 P.2d 1135 (1974);......
  • Adoption of Schumacher, In re
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 12, 1983
    ...11; Wilson v. Wallace (1981), 274 Ark. 48, 622 S.W.2d 164; In re Adoption of Gardiner (Iowa 1980), 287 N.W.2d 555; Lee v. Kepler (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1967), 197 So.2d 570.) This is consistent with the statute's aim of promoting the best interests and welfare of the child (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch.......
  • Von Eiff v. Azicri
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1998
    ...grandparent, was deemed "unjustified" and "unenforceable." See Sheehy v. Sheehy, 325 So.2d 12, 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Lee v. Kepler, 197 So.2d 570, 573 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1967). In Florida, the first grandparent visitation legislation was enacted in 1978, in the context of dissolution of marriag......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT