State ex rel. Marden v. Chastain

• Decision Date: 11 April 1967
• Docket Number: No. 67-123,67-123
• Citation: 197 So.2d 561
• Parties: STATE of Florida ex rel. Gayle Rae (Brown) MARDEN, Relator, v. Honorable Dixie Herlong CHASTAIN, as Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Respondent.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 561

197 So.2d 561

STATE of Florida ex rel. Gayle Rae (Brown) MARDEN, Relator, v. Honorable Dixie Herlong CHASTAIN, as Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Respondent.

No. 67-123.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 11, 1967.

Rehearing Denied May 5, 1967.

Tobias Simon, Miami, for relator.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Herbert P. Benn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Thomas & Sturrup, Hollywood, for respondent.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This cause was initiated by the relator, Gayle Rae (Brown) Marden, filing a suggestion for writ of prohibition against the respondent, one of the Judges of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Dade County, Florida. The application alleged that the relator was formerly married to James L. Brown; divorced from him in 1961, and granted custody of their minor child by the final decree of divorce, in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida.

She alleged that the final decree had not been modified or altered; that relator had custody of the child since the date of the final decree of divorce, but that notwithstanding these facts, a petition had been filed in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in June of 1966 to change the custody of the child, and that the respondent had orally announced that she would change the custody of the child from the relator to the natural father. It also alleged that the child was not dependent nor delinquent, nor was she in the process of becoming a delinquent child.

Upon consideration thereof, we determined that a prima facie case had been made and we issued a rule to show cause to the respondent, as of February 15, 1967, with proper notice thereof. Notwithstanding the issuance of the rule nisi in prohibition, the respondent entered an 'order on petition for custody' on February 23, 1967, in violation of Florida Appellate Rule 4.5(d)(2), 31 F.S.A. The relator neglected or failed to apprise this court or provide it with a copy of the order of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, dated June 1, 1966, which transferred the jurisdiction of the minor child insofar as custody, maintenance and support was concerned, to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Dade County, Florida, and which granted the power to the court to modify or revise the final decree insofar as these matters were concerned, as it might see fit.

The relator, by brief and argument, suggests that the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Dade County, Florida has no jurisdiction to amend or modify a final decree of divorce granted in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida pertaining to the custody of a non-dependent or non-delinquent child, even though the record reflects that there was a prior order of the Circuit judge in the original divorce action which transferred jurisdiction of the cause insofar as custody to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Dade County.

In a similar fact situation, the Florida Supreme Court, after first upholding the constitutionality of chapter 27000, Laws of Florida (1951), ruled that the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Dade County has jurisdiction to modify a final decree of a Circuit Court involving child custody, regardless of questions of the child's dependency or delinquency. ¹

We find the Rouse case to be controlling here. The case relied upon by the relator is not applicable, as it involved a modification of a child support...