Ruse v. Ruse

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ruse v. Ruse

478 So. 2d 102, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2462, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16636

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 1, 1985

DocketNo. 85-1066

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 478 So. 2d 102 (Ruse v. Ruse) 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

Ruse v. Ruse, 478 So. 2d 102, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2462, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16636 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHAN, Judge.

In this child custody proceeding a divorced father, a resident of Florida, appeals from the trial court’s order declining to exercise jurisdiction over a child of the marriage living with her mother in Indiana. We affirm.

Although one child of the marriage is in Florida with the father, the child who is the subject of this proceeding has not been in Florida since July 1983, when her mother moved with her to Indiana. We have considered the father’s arguments and do not conclude that the trial court erred in finding that the pertinent requirements of section 61.1308(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1983), for jurisdiction do not exist. Those requirements are that the child must have a significant connection with this state and that there must be available in this state substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training and personal relationships.

Moser v. Davis, 364 So.2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), relied upon by the father, is distinguishable. Moser involved the emergency provisions of section 61.1308(1)(c), which are applicable when the child is physically present in Florida.

It appears that Indiana is the proper forum for a custody proceeding with respect to the child who is with her mother in Indiana.

Affirmed.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur.

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

LEHAN, Judge.

In this child custody proceeding a divorced father, a resident of Florida, appeals from the trial court’s order declining to exercise jurisdiction over a child of the marriage living with her mother in Indiana. We affirm.

Although one child of the marriage is in Florida with the father, the child who is the subject of this proceeding has not been in Florida since July 1983, when her mother moved with her to Indiana. We have considered the father’s arguments and do not conclude that the trial court erred in finding that the pertinent requirements of section 61.1308(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1983), for jurisdiction do not exist. Those requirements are that the child must have a significant connection with this state and that there must be available in this state substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training and personal relationships.

Moser v. Davis, 364 So.2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), relied upon by the father, is distinguishable. Moser involved the emergency provisions of section 61.1308(1)(c), which are applicable when the child is physically present in Florida.

It appears that Indiana is the proper forum for a custody proceeding with respect to the child who is with her mother in Indiana.

Affirmed.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 So. 2d 102, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2462, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruse-v-ruse-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack