Ingram v. Ingram

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ingram v. Ingram

110 So. 3d 987, 2013 WL 1629128, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6048

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 17, 2013

DocketNo. 4D12-1940

StatusPublished

This text of 110 So. 3d 987 (Ingram v. Ingram) 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

Ingram v. Ingram, 110 So. 3d 987, 2013 WL 1629128, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6048 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order establishing summer visitation, as none of the arguments made by the appellant on appeal were preserved by proper objection in the trial court. In addition, the issues are moot for the previous summer’s visitation. Nevertheless, we take this opportunity to observe that the restrictions regarding the possession of guns by the child or by the father in the presence of the child are overly broad. Even though the guardian ad litem and mother sought a prohibition against the child handling a real gun, BB gun, or paintball gun because of the child’s [988]*988tender years and his unfortunate experience with a BB gun on a visit with the father, the trial court additionally included in the prohibition toy guns. No evidence showed that the child should be disallowed to possess or play with a pop gun, water pistol or some similar childhood toy.

WARNER, GROSS and CIKLIN, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order establishing summer visitation, as none of the arguments made by the appellant on appeal were preserved by proper objection in the trial court. In addition, the issues are moot for the previous summer’s visitation. Nevertheless, we take this opportunity to observe that the restrictions regarding the possession of guns by the child or by the father in the presence of the child are overly broad. Even though the guardian ad litem and mother sought a prohibition against the child handling a real gun, BB gun, or paintball gun because of the child’s [988]*988tender years and his unfortunate experience with a BB gun on a visit with the father, the trial court additionally included in the prohibition toy guns. No evidence showed that the child should be disallowed to possess or play with a pop gun, water pistol or some similar childhood toy.

WARNER, GROSS and CIKLIN, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 So. 3d 987, 2013 WL 1629128, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingram-v-ingram-fladistctapp-2013.