State ex rel. Hendricks v. Hunt

Decision Date22 January 1954
Citation70 So.2d 301
PartiesSTATE ex rel. HENDRICKS v. HUNT, Judge, et al.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

F. G. Janes and Ray Sandstrom, Lakeland, for relator.

S. L. Holland, Jr., Bartow, for respondent.

SEBRING, Justice.

This is prohibition proceeding wherein the relator seeks to prohibit the respondent, as Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Polk County, Florida, from acting in respect to minor children involved in a divorce proceeding now pending in the Circuit Court for Polk County, Florida. As a basis for the relief sought the suggestion for the writ of prohibition alleges in substance, that on September 18, 1951, the Circuit Court for Polk County took jurisdiction of a divorce action wherein the relator, Geraldine Moore Hendricks, was plaintiff and John Manuel Hendricks was defendant. On said date the circuit court entered a decree in the cause awarding the custody of the minor children of the parties to the plaintiff 'so long as said plaintiff conducts herself on a proper moral plane and gives, or in the event of her acceptance of employment, procures care and competent supervision for the said minor children;' and retained jurisdiction of the suit 'for the purpose of making such other and further orders with regards to the custody and support of said children as will be adequate to guard and protect their interests and welfare.' Notwithstanding the fact that said circuit court took, exercised and retained jurisdiction of the matter of the support of the minor children so as adequately to guard and protect their interests and welfare, the respondent judge, on October 21, 1952, did attempt to exercise jurisdiction of the matter by the entry of an order, in his said court, which recited:

'This matter coming on to be heard upon the petition filed herein, and all persons entitled to notice thereof having been duly notified, upon the evidence this Court finds that Barbara Jean Hendricks and Marilyn Hendricks are dependent children within the jurisdiction of this Court, found or living or domiciled in Polk County, Florida, of the ages of 11 and 6 years, respectively, by reason of the following facts:

'1. The home life of the children has been unstable.

'2. All factors involving and concerned with the welfare of said children have been clearly presented to the Court.

'3. The future welfare of these children may depend on concessions and adjustment of the parents--to be determined at a future date.

'And it appearing to the Court that if there has been misconduct of the children's mother, resulting in the neglect of her two children, one Mrs. Ardella Lee has been a contributing factor,

'Therefore, it is hereby ordered that Mrs. Hendricks nor Mr. Hendricks are to see, visit, write, telephone, communicate with, or otherwise contact Mrs. Ardella Lee, either directly or indirectly, or make any effort to do so by these or any other methods.

'It is further ordered for the welfare of these children that Mrs. Ardella Lee is to stay away from Mr. and Mrs. Hendricks, their respective homes, and their children, and is directed by this Court not to see, write, visit, communicate with, or otherwise contact, either directly or indirectly, or make any effort to do so by these or any other methods, Mr. or Mrs. Hendricks, or their children.

'It is further ordered that this Court shall take custody and retain jurisdiction of these children and this case for the purpose of making such other and further Orders as may from time to time be necessary, but the said children shall remain, for the time being, in the physical care of the mother, Mrs. Geraldine Hendricks.'

The suggestion in prohibition further alleges that after the entry of said order the said judge adjudged the relator, Geraldine Moore Hendricks, in contempt of court and sentenced her to confinement in the Polk County Jail for a period of 30 days; that while she was so confined the respondent judge entered an order adjudging the minor children of the parties to be dependent children and awarded the custody of said children to a Mr. and Mrs. J. P. Register.

The suggestion in prohibition finally alleges that the respondent judge had no jurisdiction or power to enter the said orders, because the circuit court that first had jurisdiction of the parties had not divested itself of jurisdiction by the entry of an appropriate order transferring the said cause or the jurisdiction thereof, to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Polk County, and that consequently all orders entered or to be entered by said respondent were, or would be entirely without jurisdiction.

The respondent moved to dismiss the suggestion for the writ of prohibition on the grounds (1) that the Circuit Court of Polk County and not the Supreme Court of Florida was the proper forum for the prohibition proceeding; (2) that the relator had a complete and adequate remedy by appeal to the circuit court from any order of the juvenile court; (3) that prior to the institution of the instant proceeding in prohibition the circuit court transferred jurisdiction of the minor children to the juvenile court, as shown by certain orders of the circuit court attached to said motion.

The first order referred to in, and attached to, the motion to dismiss the suggestion in prohibition was rendered by the Judge of the Circuit Court for Polk County on August 7, 1952, and reads:

'Whereas, these records were ordered sealed by this Court, and

'Whereas, the welfare of the minor children involved has come to the attention of the Polk County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, and

'Whereas, it appears the same witnesses are to be used in any action in this matter in the said Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court,

'Now, therefore, the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Polk County, Florida, is hereby directed to release these sealed records to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court for official use only, after which they are to be returned to the Clerk of the Circuit Court and again sealed as previously ordered.'

The second order referred to in the motion was rendered by the Judge of the Circuit Court for Polk County on August 5, 1953, on a petition filed by the defendant in the divorce proceedings to modify the final decree, and reads:

'The petition of John Manuel Hendricks coming on to be heard, and the Court finding that no notice of this proceeding is necessary; that plaintiff, Geraldine Moore Hendricks, is now in the County Jail of Polk County, and the children of the parties are in custody of the juvenile home of Polk County, and it further appearing that said plaintiff made it impossible for petitioner to make his regular payment of support for their children, but that three payments of $20.00 each were made to and are held by the Polk County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, as evidenced by receipts Nos. 1089, 1100 and 1108, and the Court being advised, it is, Decreed, until further order of this Court:

'1. That petitioner, John Manuel Hendricks, is hereby authorized to withdraw said total sum of $60.00 from the Polk County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court;

'2. That said John Manuel Hendricks shall make future payments of support to said Polk County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court for maintenance of said children from and after the date of their arrival at the Juvenile Home of Polk County.'

While the orders attached to the motion to dismiss the suggestion should more properly have been made a part of return filed by the respondent in response to the suggestion, and not incorporated in the motion to dismiss, we do not understand that the relator denies the correctness of these orders. Consequently, we shall in this case (without approving the practice for future proceedings) treat the orders as having a proper place in the motion, and decide the issues accordingly.

When the motion is so considered, the question is whether the record, on its face, shows that the court over which the respondent judge presides is without jurisdiction to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • English v. McCrary
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • May 6, 1977
    ...Abuse of discretion by the inferior tribunal acting within its jurisdiction is not a matter to be determined by prohibition. State v. Hunt, 70 So.2d 301 (Fla. 1954), State ex rel. Jacksonville Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Gray et al., 130 Fla. 359, 177 So. 849 (1937). If the existence of juris......
  • Gallego v. Purdy, 82-748
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 23, 1982
    ...Abuse of discretion by the inferior tribunal acting within its jurisdiction is not a matter to be determined by prohibition. State v. Hunt, 70 So.2d 301 (Fla.1954), State ex rel. Jacksonville Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Gray et al., 130 Fla. 359, 177 So. 849 (1937). If the existence of jurisd......
  • S. L. T., In Interest of
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 16, 1965
    ...court for enforcement proceedings and therefore exclusive jurisdiction of the matter rested in the circuit court. In State ex rel. Hendricks v. Hunt, Fla.1954, 70 So.2d 301, the Supreme Court held that a circuit court order in a pending divorce suit, placing children in the custody of their......
  • State ex rel. Robert L. Turchin, Inc. v. Herin
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • March 20, 1957
    ...Corporation took the position that the lower court had no jurisdiction to proceed in the second suit, relying on State ex rel. Hendricks v. Hunt, Fla.1954, 70 So.2d 301; Horter v. Commercial Bank & Trust Company, 99 Fla. 678, 126 So. 909, and Sec. 52.12(2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A. We do no......
  • 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