Brookins v. Brookins

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brookins v. Brookins

651 So. 2d 1318, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3208, 1995 WL 133363

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 29, 1995·No. No. 94-710·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order denying appellant’s motion to modify child custody. To prevail on a motion to modify custody, “the moving party has the burden to prove that a substantial and material change in circumstance has occurred since the dissolution and that the welfare of the child would be promoted by the change in custody.” Cardelle v. Cardelle, 645 So.2d 22, 22-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Gutierrez v. Medina, 613 So.2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The evidence supports the general master’s finding that appellant had not established a change in circumstances; the [1319]*1319trial court properly adopted those findings and denied appellant’s exceptions.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order denying appellant’s motion to modify child custody. To prevail on a motion to modify custody, “the moving party has the burden to prove that a substantial and material change in circumstance has occurred since the dissolution and that the welfare of the child would be promoted by the change in custody.” Cardelle v. Cardelle, 645 So.2d 22, 22-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Gutierrez v. Medina, 613 So.2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The evidence supports the general master’s finding that appellant had not established a change in circumstances; the [1319]*1319trial court properly adopted those findings and denied appellant’s exceptions.

Affirmed.

Brookins v. Brookins, 651 So. 2d 1318, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3208, 1995 WL 133363 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

651 So. 2d 1318 (Brookins v. Brookins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related