Marriage of Strickland v. Strickland

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Marriage of Strickland v. Strickland

509 So. 2d 393, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1631, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 17361

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 7, 1987

DocketNo. BQ-115

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 509 So. 2d 393 (Marriage of Strickland v. Strickland) 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

Marriage of Strickland v. Strickland, 509 So. 2d 393, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1631, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 17361 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The wife in this dissolution of marriage cause appeals from the trial court’s decision to place primary residential care and custody of the parties’ daughter with the husband. We affirm, but find the unusual procedural posture of this case requires a brief discussion.

Upon receipt of the husband’s answer brief (erroneously designated “Reply Brief”), the wife discovered references to matters occurring subsequent to entry of the final judgment in this cause. The wife then filed a motion to strike the objectionable portions of the husband’s brief and a motion for extension of time to file a reply brief. This court responded with an order directing the husband to show cause why the wife’s motion to strike should not be granted, and further stating that time for service of the reply brief would be tolled pending disposition of the motion to strike.

Shortly thereafter, through implementation of this court’s policy of expediting all child cases, we inadvertently decided the merits of the appeal before ruling on appellant’s motion to strike. In so doing, we deprived the wife of her opportunity to file a reply brief. When the wife brought this matter to our attention, we withdrew our per curiam opinion filed April 7, 1987, granted the wife’s. motion to strike, and granted the wife an extension of time to file a reply brief.

The wife’s reply brief has been received, and has been considered carefully by the panel. The authorities cited by the wife are relevant to the issues. Nevertheless, we find there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s decision that the best interests of the child would be better served with the father as primary residential parent. See Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So.2d 22, 24 (Fla.1975); Rogers v. Rogers, 490 So.2d 1017, 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Miller v. Miller, 342 So.2d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 354 So.2d 983 (Fla. 1977).

Accordingly, the trial court’s custody determination is affirmed.

JOANOS, THOMPSON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The wife in this dissolution of marriage cause appeals from the trial court’s decision to place primary residential care and custody of the parties’ daughter with the husband. We affirm, but find the unusual procedural posture of this case requires a brief discussion.

Upon receipt of the husband’s answer brief (erroneously designated “Reply Brief”), the wife discovered references to matters occurring subsequent to entry of the final judgment in this cause. The wife then filed a motion to strike the objectionable portions of the husband’s brief and a motion for extension of time to file a reply brief. This court responded with an order directing the husband to show cause why the wife’s motion to strike should not be granted, and further stating that time for service of the reply brief would be tolled pending disposition of the motion to strike.

Shortly thereafter, through implementation of this court’s policy of expediting all child cases, we inadvertently decided the merits of the appeal before ruling on appellant’s motion to strike. In so doing, we deprived the wife of her opportunity to file a reply brief. When the wife brought this matter to our attention, we withdrew our per curiam opinion filed April 7, 1987, granted the wife’s. motion to strike, and granted the wife an extension of time to file a reply brief.

The wife’s reply brief has been received, and has been considered carefully by the panel. The authorities cited by the wife are relevant to the issues. Nevertheless, we find there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s decision that the best interests of the child would be better served with the father as primary residential parent. See Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So.2d 22, 24 (Fla.1975); Rogers v. Rogers, 490 So.2d 1017, 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Miller v. Miller, 342 So.2d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 354 So.2d 983 (Fla. 1977).

Accordingly, the trial court’s custody determination is affirmed.

JOANOS, THOMPSON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

509 So. 2d 393, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1631, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 17361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marriage-of-strickland-v-strickland-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack