Shaw v. Shaw, 84-508

Decision Date20 September 1984
Docket NumberNo. 84-508,84-508
Citation455 So.2d 1156
PartiesJohn SHAW, Appellant, v. Beth SHAW, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

James L. Rose of Becks, Becks & Wickersham, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Jerry Weiner, Columbus, Ohio, for appellee.

COWART, Judge.

This case involves due process in a hearing to modify a child custody award.

The 1980 Florida final judgment of dissolution in this case gave custody of the two children of the parties to the mother.After a proper notice and hearing, the trial judge found a substantial material change of circumstances and by order dated February 10, 1984, granted the husband's petition for modification of custody and ordered the mother's father and stepmother (maternal grandparents), who had actual custody of the children in Ohio, to deliver the children to the father who was thereby awarded temporary custody.On February 20, 1984, the maternal grandparents filed a "Motion to Interplead and Motion to Reconsider" the custody order of February 10, 1984, alleging that order was not in the best interest of the children and requesting that the maternal grandparents be given custody of the children.At a hearing on the same day this motion was filed, the trial judge first stated that a full-scale, full-blown hearing was necessary and that he did not have time to hear it that day.However, the trial judge then talked to the two children privately in an unreported conference after which the court summarily set aside the custody order of February 10, 1984, awarded the temporary custody of the two children to the grandparents and denied the father an opportunity to present any further evidence at that time or later.An order declaring the custody order of February 10, 1984, null and void and granting temporary custody of the children to the grandparents was entered February 29, 1984, and is the subject of this appeal by the father.

The order of February 29, 1984, was entered in violation of the father's basic constitutional due process rights to notice and opportunity to be heard and it is hereby reversed and set aside and the order of February 10, 1984, is reinstated.Due process applies to hearings to modify custody awards such as those in this case, seeConnors v. Connors, 327 So.2d 877(Fla. 2d DCA1976), although the two orders in this case related to temporary custody.The trial judge indicated that by temporary custody he was referring to "a year or two."Because the order of ...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
12 cases
  • Ynclan v. The Honorable Paul K. Woodward
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • March 25, 2010
    ...of Slayton, 86 Cal.App.4th 653, 659, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 545 (2001); Nowak v. Nowak, 546 So.2d 123, 124 (Fla.App.1989); Shaw v. Shaw, 455 So.2d 1156,(Fla.App.1984); Cunningham v. Cunningham, 787 N.E.2d 930, 937 (Ind.App.2003); Cox v. Cox, see note 26, supra; Shepherd v. Shepherd, 273 N.C. 71, 1......
  • Hickey v. Burlinson
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 30, 2010
    ...a request that a court reporter transcribe a child's in camera testimony “ must be honored.” (Emphasis added.) See also Shaw v. Shaw, 455 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (reversing the trial court's order summarily setting aside a previous order awarding the father custody after holding a pr......
  • Nowak v. Nowak
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 13, 1989
    ...1984); Gavronsky v. Gavronsky, 403 So.2d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Teta v. Teta, 297 So.2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). In Shaw v. Shaw, 455 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), the court reversed the trial court's order summarily setting aside a previous order awarding the father custody after denyi......
  • Ex parte State, 1991190
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 29, 2001
  • Get Started for Free

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