Lindgren v. Lindgren
| Decision Date | 19 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 68--343,68--343 |
| Citation | 220 So.2d 440 |
| Parties | Pamela R. LINDGREN, Appellant, v. Eric P. LINDGREN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Elwood Hogan and George W. Greer, of Wolfe, Bonner & Hogan, Clearwater, for appellant.
Harry W. Fogle of Fogle, Wilson & Shingler, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
The order appealed from might be wrong, but it is not erroneous. This may baffle the layman, so we explain; appellate judges will not substitute their judgment for that of the trial judge if the record supports the judgment.
A custody order providing that the father shall have custody of the young twin daughters four days one week and three days the next, alternating with the mother, strikes us as unusual, but it is amply supported by the record and it is apparent that the trial judge had uppermost in his mind the welfare of the children. This is as it should be.
When Pamela Lindgren filed her suit for divorce her husband took the girls without her knowledge. She filed a petition, and their temporary custody was placed in her. Later she began a liaison with a married man who rented a house for her, paid a portion of the rent and spent considerable time there. Eric Lindgren sought and got temporary custody as a result. Five weeks before the final hearing Pamela broke off the extra-marital relationship and moved to her parents' home. For all that appears in the record, at the time of the final hearing she was living under morally satisfactory circumstances but, as Judge Driver said, 'one robin does not make a Spring.' This case is thus differentiated from Julian v. Julian, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 896. See Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 592.
Both of the parties and their mothers are anxious to have the responsibility of caring for these children, and it is possible that these three-year old twins must for a while have their lives disrupted and their affections torn. But the trial judge is well aware that the mother has prior claim to custody, other things being equal. The trouble is, Pamela Lindgren hasn't shown yet that other things are equal on a stable and continuing basis.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Gibbs v. Gibbs, 96-01231
-
Taylor v. Schilt, 72-617
...Longstreth v. Frischkorn, Fla.App.3d 1965, 171 So.2d 550; Bernstein v. Bernstein, Fla.App.2d 1969, 220 So.2d 429; of Lindgren v. Lindgren, Fla.App.2d 1969, 220 So.2d 440. In all of those cases factors fresh at the time of divorce militated against changing custody, but the courts in each ca......
-
Gerscovich v. Gerscovich, 81-129.
...the following cases some form of alternating custody was permitted: Hare v. Potter, 233 So.2d 653 (Fla.4th DCA 1970); Lindgren v. Lindgren, 220 So.2d 440 (Fla.2d DCA 1969); Bolton v. Gordon, 201 So.2d 754 (Fla.4th DCA 1967); Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 127 So.2d 136 (Fla.3d DCA 1961); and Met......
-
Wonsetler v. Wonsetler, 70-107
...can be condoned if there are special circumstances or legally unequal facts present to support such an arrangement. Lindgren v. Lindgren, Fla.App.1969, 220 So.2d 440. Hurst v. Hurst, Fla.1946, 158 Fla. 43, 27 So.2d 749, was a case similar to the case in consideration here. In Hurst, the Cha......