Stern v. Matheisl

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stern v. Matheisl

267 So. 2d 343, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6127

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 24, 1972

DocketNo. 71-786

StatusPublished

This text of 267 So. 2d 343 (Stern v. Matheisl) 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

Stern v. Matheisl, 267 So. 2d 343, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6127 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

OWEN, Judge.

Appellant obtained a California decree of divorce from appellee in 1967, in which decree appellant was awarded custody of the parties minor child, Aaron. Appellant and the child moved to Florida where they have resided continuously since that time. In 1971 appellee successfully applied to the California court for an order awarding him custody of the minor child. On the basis of that order, appellee applied to the Circuit Court of Broward County for writ of habeas corpus to obtain custody of the child. After hearing on the petition, the writ was granted and the appellant ordered to surrender custody to appellee. This is the order appealed.

Appellant tells us that the trial court heard six hours of testimony, but then entered its order granting custody to appellee, not on the merits of the best interests of the child, but solely on the basis of the California order. Of course, the best interest of the child is always the vital issue in cases of this type. Crane v. Hayes, Fla.1971, 253 So.2d 435. While it is true that the order appealed did not contain an expressed finding to the effect that the award of custody to appellee would be in the best interest of the child, neither does the order clearly indicate that the trial court did not base its decision upon a consideration of the best interests of the child. The record on appeal does not contain any of the proceedings had before the court at the hearing on the petition, nor has there been a stipulated statement of the facts filed. In the absence of a sufficient record we must presume that the trial court [344]*344applied the correct principle of law on the basis of competent evidence introduced at the. hearing. See Johnson v. Town of Eatonville, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 664; Sydney Paper Company v. Gans, Fla.App. 1966, 193 So.2d 41.

The order appealed is affirmed.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN, J., concur.

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

OWEN, Judge.

Appellant obtained a California decree of divorce from appellee in 1967, in which decree appellant was awarded custody of the parties minor child, Aaron. Appellant and the child moved to Florida where they have resided continuously since that time. In 1971 appellee successfully applied to the California court for an order awarding him custody of the minor child. On the basis of that order, appellee applied to the Circuit Court of Broward County for writ of habeas corpus to obtain custody of the child. After hearing on the petition, the writ was granted and the appellant ordered to surrender custody to appellee. This is the order appealed.

Appellant tells us that the trial court heard six hours of testimony, but then entered its order granting custody to appellee, not on the merits of the best interests of the child, but solely on the basis of the California order. Of course, the best interest of the child is always the vital issue in cases of this type. Crane v. Hayes, Fla.1971, 253 So.2d 435. While it is true that the order appealed did not contain an expressed finding to the effect that the award of custody to appellee would be in the best interest of the child, neither does the order clearly indicate that the trial court did not base its decision upon a consideration of the best interests of the child. The record on appeal does not contain any of the proceedings had before the court at the hearing on the petition, nor has there been a stipulated statement of the facts filed. In the absence of a sufficient record we must presume that the trial court [344]*344applied the correct principle of law on the basis of competent evidence introduced at the. hearing. See Johnson v. Town of Eatonville, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 664; Sydney Paper Company v. Gans, Fla.App. 1966, 193 So.2d 41.

The order appealed is affirmed.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 So. 2d 343, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stern-v-matheisl-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack