Perlman v. Perlman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Perlman v. Perlman

502 So. 2d 951, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 374, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6478

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 27, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2721

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 502 So. 2d 951 (Perlman v. Perlman) 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

Perlman v. Perlman, 502 So. 2d 951, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 374, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6478 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

FERGUSON, Judge.

An evidentiary hearing on a father’s petition for change of child custody was continued for the purpose of an investigation of the proposed new home of the custodial mother and minor children. The court stated that the hearing would resume upon receipt of the investigatory report. When the written report of the investigation was completed, the court considered it ex parte without another hearing, over the father’s objections, and denied the petition. That denial of a hearing is the main issue in this appeal.

When the trial court relies on investigative reports for the purpose of resolving a child custody dispute, due process requires that the parties be given an opportunity to review the reports and to present any evidence which might rebut the recommendations contained in the reports. Kern v. Kern, 333 So.2d 17 (Fla.1976).

[952]*952The remaining point on appeal is affirmed on authority of Matilla v. Matilla, 474 So.2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing where the appellant/father may produce evidence to rebut the evidence and recommendations contained in the investigative report.

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

FERGUSON, Judge.

An evidentiary hearing on a father’s petition for change of child custody was continued for the purpose of an investigation of the proposed new home of the custodial mother and minor children. The court stated that the hearing would resume upon receipt of the investigatory report. When the written report of the investigation was completed, the court considered it ex parte without another hearing, over the father’s objections, and denied the petition. That denial of a hearing is the main issue in this appeal.

When the trial court relies on investigative reports for the purpose of resolving a child custody dispute, due process requires that the parties be given an opportunity to review the reports and to present any evidence which might rebut the recommendations contained in the reports. Kern v. Kern, 333 So.2d 17 (Fla.1976).

[952]*952The remaining point on appeal is affirmed on authority of Matilla v. Matilla, 474 So.2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing where the appellant/father may produce evidence to rebut the evidence and recommendations contained in the investigative report.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 So. 2d 951, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 374, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perlman-v-perlman-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack