Smith v. Smith
| Decision Date | 21 December 1951 |
| Citation | 55 So.2d 735 |
| Parties | SMITH v. SMITH. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
E. M. Magaha and W. H. Carmine, Jr., Fort Myers, for appellant.
Allen & Knudsen, Fort Myers, for appellee.
The sole question here presented is whether the Chancellor erred in entering an order restricting the visitation privileges of the appellant as to the time and place of visiting his minor child. At the time of the entry of the order, the child was under three years of age and resided with his mother in the home of his maternal grandparents, the sole custody of the child having been awarded to the mother previously in divorce proceedings. The order appealed from granted the appellant the right to visit his child on alternate Sundays between the hours of 3:00 P. M. and 5:00 P. M. and provided further that 'This visitation privilege is to be exercised at the place of child's residence and said child is not to be taken from the house by the father.'
Under the circumstances shown by the evidence, and having in mind the tender age of the child and that his welfare must be our paramount consideration, it cannot be said that the appellant has been unduly restricted in his visitation privilege, as things now stand. We have no doubt that at a later date and upon a proper showing being made by the appellant, the Chancellor would enlarge the appellant's visitation privilege as to both time and place.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lane v. Lane, 91-1828
...for that of the trier of fact. Adams v. Adams, 376 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 388 So.2d 1109 (Fla.1980); Smith v. Smith, 55 So.2d 735 (Fla.1951). However, the rationale for such rule is the ability of the trial judge to observe the demeanor and personalities of the parties......
- Merritt v. Merritt