Ginder v. Ginder

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ginder v. Ginder

544 So. 2d 349, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1448, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3492, 1989 WL 65661

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 1989

DocketNo. 88-2724

StatusPublished

This text of 544 So. 2d 349 (Ginder v. Ginder) 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

Ginder v. Ginder, 544 So. 2d 349, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1448, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3492, 1989 WL 65661 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellant appeals an “Order Changing Primary Residential Responsibility” for the parties’ two sons from appellant to appel-lee. We reverse.

This Court has dealt with this case in two previous opinions. Ginder v. Ginder, 531 So.2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) [Ginder I] and Ginder v. Ginder, 536 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) [Ginder II], In Ginder II, this Court reversed the order upon which the instant order was based, recognizing that a “court cannot change residential custody purely as a method of punishment.” Breeding v. Breeding, 515 So.2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). See also Crippen v. Crippen, 508 So.2d 1339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) and Agudo v. Agudo, 411 So.2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). As this Court further determined,

... the court was not free to issue a change of custody order without evidence that a substantial or material change in the circumstances of the parties has taken place and that the best interests of the children would be served by such a change. E.g. Crippen ... (emphasis supplied).

See also section 61.13, Florida Statutes.

Therefore, based upon the history of the instant case and the rationale set forth in Ginder II, we reverse the order on appeal.

BOOTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

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

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellant appeals an “Order Changing Primary Residential Responsibility” for the parties’ two sons from appellant to appel-lee. We reverse.

This Court has dealt with this case in two previous opinions. Ginder v. Ginder, 531 So.2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) [Ginder I] and Ginder v. Ginder, 536 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) [Ginder II], In Ginder II, this Court reversed the order upon which the instant order was based, recognizing that a “court cannot change residential custody purely as a method of punishment.” Breeding v. Breeding, 515 So.2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). See also Crippen v. Crippen, 508 So.2d 1339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) and Agudo v. Agudo, 411 So.2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). As this Court further determined,

... the court was not free to issue a change of custody order without evidence that a substantial or material change in the circumstances of the parties has taken place and that the best interests of the children would be served by such a change. E.g. Crippen ... (emphasis supplied).

See also section 61.13, Florida Statutes.

Therefore, based upon the history of the instant case and the rationale set forth in Ginder II, we reverse the order on appeal.

BOOTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

544 So. 2d 349, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1448, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3492, 1989 WL 65661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ginder-v-ginder-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack