Bethea v. Bethea

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bethea v. Bethea

596 So. 2d 1279, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4724, 1992 WL 83909

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 28, 1992

DocketNo. 90-87

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 596 So. 2d 1279 (Bethea v. Bethea) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bethea v. Bethea, 596 So. 2d 1279, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4724, 1992 WL 83909 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is brought from an order changing child custody from the mother to the father, and ordering the mother to pay $40 per week for child support.

A substantial change of circumstances, justifying the award of custody to the father, occurred after the mother suffered an alcohol and drug-induced stroke which caused permanent brain damage. On the facts in this record, which include recommendations of experts for the custody change, no abuse of discretion is shown. Discretion is abused only when the trial court’s decision is unreasonable. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

Neither is a due process violation shown, based on lack of notice and an opportunity to be heard, in the order of support. The court’s written order reflects that the parties stipulated to the support award. To avoid the consequences of a stipulation properly entered into, a party must show that the agreement is the product of a fraud, misrepresentation or mistake of fact. Groover v. Groover, 383 So.2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). No such showing has been made.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI