McGregor v. McGregor, 81-568
| Decision Date | 04 August 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-568,81-568 |
| Citation | 418 So.2d 1073 |
| Parties | Shannon D. McGREGOR, Appellant, v. Robert B. McGREGOR, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John Motsinger, Jr., Orlando, and Edna L. Caruso, West Palm Beach, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Mack N. Cleveland, Jr., of Cleveland & Bridges, Sanford, for appellee/cross-appellant.
This is an appeal from an order modifying a judgment in a marriage dissolution case. The primary issue, one which has caused this court grave concern in this case, is the changing of custody of the two minor sons from the mother to the father. We have examined this record quite carefully and must determine the father failed to carry the heavy burden placed upon him to permit the court to change the custody of nine-year-old Shawn from the mother to the father. We are quite aware it is usually best for brothers to stay together during their formative years, but we agree with the trial judge's determination that the evidence supports a change of custody for thirteen-year-old Mark. The trial judge apparently found and the evidence reveals that Mark needs to live with his father during his difficult teenage years and his father is very capable of providing the boy's needs. However, there is no evidence Shawn has the special needs which can best be provided by his father and there is ample evidence his mother is quite capable of continuing to be the fit parent the trial court first determined she was. A litigant who seeks to change a custody order carries an extraordinary burden. See Stricklin v. Stricklin, 383 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). We have determined that burden was not carried with regard to the change of custody of Shawn.
The order of modification, in so much as it changes the custody of Shawn, is reversed and this cause is remanded for the trial court to revisit the alimony and support matters which may need adjustment due to this decision. In all other respects the order is affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
I respectfully dissent from the portion of the majority opinion which reverses the order of modification for the reasons stated in Kershner v. Crocker, 400 So.2d 126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perez v. Perez, 3D99-2182.
...custody `carries an extraordinary burden.'" Zediker v. Zediker, 444 So.2d 1034, 1035 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)(quoting McGregor v. McGregor, 418 So.2d 1073, 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); and citing Elkins v. Vanden Bosch, 433 So.2d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)). The requirement that the non-custodial pare......
-
Mast v. Reed
...v. Giachetti, 416 So.2d 27 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).6 See Zediker v. Zediker, 444 So.2d 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); McGregor v. McGregor, 418 So.2d 1073 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Robinson v. Robinson, 333 So.2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).7 Bennett v. Bennett, 73 So.2d 274 (Fla.1954); Iannone v. Iannone, 54......
-
Zediker v. Zediker
...alimony, the non-custodial parent seeking to modify a prior award of custody "carries an extraordinary burden." McGregor v. McGregor, 418 So.2d 1073, 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (emphasis supplied). Accord Elkins v. Vanden Bosch, 433 So.2d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). See generally Iljazi v. Iljaz......
-
Elkins v. Vanden Bosch, s. 82-1602
...with the proposition that "[a] litigant who seeks to change a custody order carries an extraordinary burden." McGregor v. McGregor, 418 So.2d 1073, 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). To overcome the res judicata effect of an existing custody order, a party must establish that there has been a materi......