K.S. v. E.S.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

K.S. v. E.S.

161 So. 3d 456, 2014 WL 2566240, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8594

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 6, 2014

DocketNos. 5D13-3612, 5D13-4398

StatusPublished

This text of 161 So. 3d 456 (K.S. v. E.S.) 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

K.S. v. E.S., 161 So. 3d 456, 2014 WL 2566240, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8594 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, K.S. and R.G., are the natural mother and putative father of the minor child, A.S.¹ They appeal from a nonfi-nal order granting temporary custody to Appellees, the minor child’s maternal grandparents. The case was initiated by Appellees when they filed a petition for temporary custody by extended family pursuant to section 751.02, Florida Statutes. The factual and procedural history of the ease is tortured, and our record seems to be incomplete. Although proceedings , involving the minor child were also initiated in Tennessee, the Florida and Tennessee courts have conferred pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act² and determined that jurisdiction lies in Florida.

We recognize that the trial judge was faced with the difficult task of protecting a very young child. However, section 751.04 entitles the parents of the minor child to notice, and section 751.05 contemplates an evidentiary hearing on the petition.³ Accordingly, we remand the case to the lower court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

EVANDER, COHEN and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, K.S. and R.G., are the natural mother and putative father of the minor child, A.S.¹ They appeal from a nonfi-nal order granting temporary custody to Appellees, the minor child’s maternal grandparents. The case was initiated by Appellees when they filed a petition for temporary custody by extended family pursuant to section 751.02, Florida Statutes. The factual and procedural history of the ease is tortured, and our record seems to be incomplete. Although proceedings , involving the minor child were also initiated in Tennessee, the Florida and Tennessee courts have conferred pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act² and determined that jurisdiction lies in Florida.

We recognize that the trial judge was faced with the difficult task of protecting a very young child. However, section 751.04 entitles the parents of the minor child to notice, and section 751.05 contemplates an evidentiary hearing on the petition.³ Accordingly, we remand the case to the lower court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

EVANDER, COHEN and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 So. 3d 456, 2014 WL 2566240, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ks-v-es-fladistctapp-2014.