Case ID: so2d_388/html/0623-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ANSTEAD, Judge. BERANEK, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Linda K. BROWN, Appellant, v. John T. BROWN, Appellee.
    Nos. 80-80, 80-1037.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Sept. 24, 1980.
    
      Abraham H. Carchman, Hallandale, for appellant.
    H. C. Feige of Patterson, Maloney, Blyler & Feige, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
   ANSTEAD, Judge.

In a final judgment of dissolution the wife was initially awarded custody of the parties’ minor children. Because the wife refused to comply with a subsequent court order directing her to bring herself and the children from New Jersey to Florida, the court ordered the custody of the children transferred to the husband. No hearing was conducted or findings made as to whether transfer of custody would be in the best interests of the children.

This court has previously recognized that a trial court has broad discretion to effect compliance with its orders. Gordon v. Gordon, 368 So.2d 1356 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). However, before an order may be entered modifying the custody provisions of a final judgment or otherwise transferring custody, a determination must be made that a change in custody is in the best interests of the children. Baker v. Baker, 360 So.2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). The transfer of custody of minor children should not be used as a means of punishing recalcitrant parties to dissolution proceedings. When a change in custody is sought nothing less than a showing that such change is required to serve the best interests of the child will justify granting such a change.

Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded with directions for further proceedings consistent herewith.

MOORE, J., concurs.

BERANEK, J., concurs with opinion.

BERANEK, Judge,

concurring.

The order transferring child custody herein is obviously the result of the wife’s non-compliance with the court order requiring her to submit to a psychological evaluation. This order was part of an extended and bitter controversy between these parties. I agree with the majority that permanent child custody cannot be transferred without a full hearing on the question of whether the transfer in custody is in the best interests of the children. The order in question here does not say that it is permanent or temporary. I surmise that the litigation between these parties will go on and that the order was only temporary. It is not clear in this regard and I, therefore, concur that the order transferring custody should be vacated.