State ex rel. Watson v. Rogers
| Decision Date | 16 March 1956 |
| Citation | 86 So.2d 645 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida ex rel. R. L. WATSON, Petitioner, v. D. O. ROGERS, as Circuit Judge, Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County, Florida; The Circuit Court, Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County, Florida, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
William P. Temasello, Bartow, for petitioner.
Oxford & Oxford and Chas. F. Chastain, Lakeland, for respondents.
August 31, 1954, Clem Harris Watson was granted a divorce from Judy Watson in Polk County. The custody of their three minor children, Judith Clemine Watson, Lorena June Watson and Clem Harris Watson, Jr., was awarded to Judy Watson. April 8, 1955, pursuant to petitions filed in the Juvenile Court of Hillsborough County, said court entered an order taking custody of Clem Harris (Sonny) Watson, Jr., as a dependent child. On the following date, April 9, 1955, under like representations, the said Juvenile Court entered an order taking custody and control of Judith Clemine Watson and Lorena June Watson as dependent children and placed all three minors in custody and control of R. L. Watson, their grandfather.
April 18, 1955, Clem Harris Watson filed a second suit in the Circuit Court of Polk County in which he sought to modify the final decree of divorce entered August 31, 1954, in so far as it affected the custody of the minor children. The court entered an order on the same date restraining Judy Watson from removing the children and ordering them to be held in the custody of R. L. Watson. April 21, 1955, after a hearing on the petitions of April 8 and 9, the Juvenile Court of Hillsborough County adjudicated said minors to be dependent children in contemplation of law and placed them in the home of their father, Clem Harris Watson, under the supervision of a counselor of the court. Despite the latter order of April 21, 1955, the Circuit Court of Polk County entered an order authorizing defendant, July Watson, to visit said minor children three mornings each week from 9:00 A.M. to 10:30 A.M. and to have said children visit her on Tuesday of each week from 9:00 A.M. to 7:30 P.M.
June 6, 1955, on petition of Judy Watson, the Circuit Court of Polk County entered an order without notice or hearing directing the relator, R. L. Watson, to deliver the minor children to Judy Watson instanter and upon failure to do so, to appear before said court at 2:00 P.M., Thursday, June 9, 1955, at Lakeland, Florida, and show cause why he refused to do so. Said hearing was not conducted account of the inability of the judge to attend. June 14, 1955, relator, R. L. Watson, moved to stay further proceedings in the Circuit Court on the ground that the Juvenile Court of Hillsborough County had original and exclusive jurisdiction of said minor children by virtue of their having been declared dependent and prayed the court to take no further action in regard to their custody until the Juvenile Court of Hillsborough County transferred or relinquished its jurisdiction. In response to this petition the Circuit Court entered an order holding that it had jurisdiction of said minor children by virtue of the proceeding filed April 18, 1955, by Clem Harris Watson, denied the motion to stay and directed R. L. Watson to place custody of said children in their mother, Judy Watson, Thursday of each week.
Account of the latter order, suggestion for writ of prohibition was filed in this court by R. L. Watson, a rule nisi was issued so the cause comes on for final disposition on motion of respondent to quash the rule nisi and dismiss the suggestion for the writ of prohibition.
The point for determination is whether or not after minor children of divorced parents have been declared to be dependent by the Juvenile Court pursuant to F.S. Chapter 39, F.S.A., may the Circuit Court in proceedings supplementary to divorce exercise jurisdiction over said minor children and enter orders relating to their case, custody and control.
The answer to this question turns on the interpretation of Sections 11 and 50, Article V of the Constitution, F.S.A., and F.S. § 39.02(1), F.S.A., the pertinent parts of which are as follows:
* * *'
Section 11, Article V of the Constitution:
'The Circuit Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases in equity, also in all cases at law, not cognizable by inferior courts, * * * to the estates and interests of minors, * * *.'
Section 50, Article V of the Constitution:
'The Legislature shall have power to create and establish Juvenile Courts in such County or Counties or Districts within the State as it may deem proper, and to define the jurisdiction and powers of such courts and the officers thereof, and to vest in such courts exclusive original jurisdiction of all or any criminal cases where minors under any age specified by the Legislature from time to time are accused, including the right to define any or all offenses committed by any such persons as acts of delinquency instead of crimes; * * * without being limited therein by the provisions of this Constitution as to trial by jury in Sections 3 and 11 of the Declaration of Rights, as to use of the terms 'prosecuting attorney' and 'information' in, Section 10 of the Declaration of Rights, as to election or apportionment of officers in Section 27 of Article 3, as to jurisdiction of criminal cases in Sections 11, 17, 22 and 25 of Article 5, as to original jurisdiction of the interests of minors in Section 11 of Article 5, and as to style of process and prosecuting in the name of the State in Section 37 of Article 5, or other existing conflicting provisions of this Constitution.'
An examination of the quoted part of F.S. § 39.02(1), F.S.A., shows that the legislature gave juvenile courts 'exclusive original jurisdiction of dependent and delinquent children domiciled, living or found within the county or district in which the court is located.' In construing this act, however, we are not to overlook the fact that whether the act says so or not, it is limited by Sections 11 and 50, Article V of the Constitution, the pertinent parts of which are quoted above. It is further limited by the purpose for which juvenile courts are created.
Section 11, Article V of the Constitution as related to this case limits the jurisdiction of circuit courts to 'all cases in equity * * * the estates and interests of minors.' Section 50 of Article V authorizes the creation of juvenile courts and to vest them with 'exclusive original jurisdiction of all or any criminal cases where minors under any age specified by the Legislature from time to time are accused, including the right to define any or all offenses committed by any such persons as acts of delinquency instead of crimes.' After all is said, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court over minors as provided by Section 11, Article V, goes to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S. L. T., In Interest of
...the children dependent and placing them in the custody of third persons as wards of the state. In a subsequent case, State ex rel. Watson v. Rogers, Fla.1956, 86 So.2d 645, the Supreme Court held that an outstanding juvenile court order issued under similar circumstances, transferring custo......
-
State v. Palm Beach County
...this chapter juvenile courts were given exclusive original jurisdiction of dependent and delinquent children. But see State ex rel. Watson v. Rogers, Fla., 86 So.2d 645. This chapter prohibits placing a child in a common jail, unless a detention home is unavailable. The desired results of t......
-
Lewison v. State
...law, have jurisdiction Only in cases involving a child's delinquency, dependency or other form of parental neglect. State ex rel. Watson v. Rogers, Fla.1956, 86 So.2d 645; O'Connell v. O'Connell, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 83. Custody and support of a child of parties in a divorce proceeding i......
-
Hauser v. Hauser
...not here dealing with a conflict of jurisdiction between the Circuit Court and the Juvenile Court as was presented in State ex rel. Watson v. Rogers, Fla.1956, 86 So.2d 645. In that case the Circuit Judge who had jurisdiction over the divorce proceedings had retained jurisdiction over the c......