Falk v. Falk

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Falk v. Falk

422 So. 2d 1025, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21813

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 30, 1982

DocketNo. AL-348

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 422 So. 2d 1025 (Falk v. Falk) 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

Falk v. Falk, 422 So. 2d 1025, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21813 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

MeCORD, Judge.

Appellant husband appeals that portion of the final judgment of dissolution of the parties’ marriage that awards custody of the parties’ young daughter to appellee wife. We affirm.

In his final judgment, the trial judge elaborated on the many factors that influenced his decision. The final judgment and the record in this case show that, although both appellant and appellee have a good relationship with their child, they are somewhat immature and both are, to a' great extent, dominated by their respective parents. The evidence shows that appellant’s parents have played a major role in caring for their granddaughter. The evidence also shows that appellee spends much of her time in the home of her parents. Thus, the influence of both sets of grandparents was a factor for consideration before the trial judge.

The major controversy in the case revolves around allegations in the record against the maternal grandfather concerning certain allegations based upon hearsay that he has attempted to sexually molest some of his own daughters and granddaughters, not including the parties’ child. The trial judge expressed his concern regarding those allegations and, as a result thereof, ordered “that at no time shall the child be with her maternal grandparents unless Marlene [appellee] is personally [1026]*1026present with her.” In an order on clarification, he placed the following restriction on appellee:

It was the court's intention that the wife will not take up permanent or temporary residence with her parents. She will be allowed to visit her parents, but such visitation should not involve overnight stays, when the wife is accompanied by the parties’ minor child.

We are concerned, as was the trial judge, with the allegations made against the maternal grandfather. However, in view of the fact that the trial judge was in a better position to assess the situation, we defer to his judgment as to the best interests of the child. In the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion, the decision of the trial judge in a child custody case will not be reversed. Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So.2d 22 (Fla.1975).

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

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

MeCORD, Judge.

Appellant husband appeals that portion of the final judgment of dissolution of the parties’ marriage that awards custody of the parties’ young daughter to appellee wife. We affirm.

In his final judgment, the trial judge elaborated on the many factors that influenced his decision. The final judgment and the record in this case show that, although both appellant and appellee have a good relationship with their child, they are somewhat immature and both are, to a' great extent, dominated by their respective parents. The evidence shows that appellant’s parents have played a major role in caring for their granddaughter. The evidence also shows that appellee spends much of her time in the home of her parents. Thus, the influence of both sets of grandparents was a factor for consideration before the trial judge.

The major controversy in the case revolves around allegations in the record against the maternal grandfather concerning certain allegations based upon hearsay that he has attempted to sexually molest some of his own daughters and granddaughters, not including the parties’ child. The trial judge expressed his concern regarding those allegations and, as a result thereof, ordered “that at no time shall the child be with her maternal grandparents unless Marlene [appellee] is personally [1026]*1026present with her.” In an order on clarification, he placed the following restriction on appellee:

It was the court's intention that the wife will not take up permanent or temporary residence with her parents. She will be allowed to visit her parents, but such visitation should not involve overnight stays, when the wife is accompanied by the parties’ minor child.

We are concerned, as was the trial judge, with the allegations made against the maternal grandfather. However, in view of the fact that the trial judge was in a better position to assess the situation, we defer to his judgment as to the best interests of the child. In the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion, the decision of the trial judge in a child custody case will not be reversed. Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So.2d 22 (Fla.1975).

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 So. 2d 1025, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/falk-v-falk-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack