Britt v. Shovein

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Britt v. Shovein

559 So. 2d 749, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2821, 1990 WL 49874

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 25, 1990

DocketNo. 89-2580

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 559 So. 2d 749 (Britt v. Shovein) 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

Britt v. Shovein, 559 So. 2d 749, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2821, 1990 WL 49874 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order granting a modification of the Final Judgment of dissolution to permit the newly remarried wife to move with the children to Minnesota. The trial judge followed the test adopted by this court in DeCamp v. Hein, 541 So.2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The husband did not seek residential custody of the children, only to restrict the wife from moving with the children out of state. While the issue is close, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion where there were some difficulties between the parties; the husband conceded that the move would be a positive improvement for the wife; the wife suggested feasible, substitute visitation arrangements; the motive for the move admittedly was neither to prevent or defeat the husband’s access to the children or flaunt the authority of the court; two of the three children wanted to move with the mother; and the third child, while having mixed emotions about being separated from his father, also expressed a desire not to be separated from his siblings.

Affirmed.

DOWNEY, DELL and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order granting a modification of the Final Judgment of dissolution to permit the newly remarried wife to move with the children to Minnesota. The trial judge followed the test adopted by this court in DeCamp v. Hein, 541 So.2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The husband did not seek residential custody of the children, only to restrict the wife from moving with the children out of state. While the issue is close, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion where there were some difficulties between the parties; the husband conceded that the move would be a positive improvement for the wife; the wife suggested feasible, substitute visitation arrangements; the motive for the move admittedly was neither to prevent or defeat the husband’s access to the children or flaunt the authority of the court; two of the three children wanted to move with the mother; and the third child, while having mixed emotions about being separated from his father, also expressed a desire not to be separated from his siblings.

Affirmed.

DOWNEY, DELL and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 So. 2d 749, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2821, 1990 WL 49874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/britt-v-shovein-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack