Case Name: Susan J. GARDNER, Appellant, v. David F. GARDNER, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-05-17
Citations: 545 So. 2d 339
Docket Number: No. 88-3028
Parties: Susan J. GARDNER, Appellant, v. David F. GARDNER, Appellee.
Judges: ANSTEAD and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 545
Pages: 339–341

Head Matter:
Susan J. GARDNER, Appellant, v. David F. GARDNER, Appellee.
No. 88-3028.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 17, 1989.
Rehearing Denied July 19, 1989.
Gary S. Maisel of Patterson, Maloney & Gardiner, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
James I. Cohn of James I. Cohn, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final judgment in a dissolution action in which the mother challenges the provisions for child custody and support and payment of a credit card debt. We affirm.
We have reviewed the entire record and conclude that there is substantial competent evidence to support the decision of the trial court to award primary residential custody of the parties' son to the father. The test on review of a custody decision is not to determine what we would have done, but rather to determine if there is substantial competent evidence to support the trial court's decision. Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So.2d 22 (Fla.1975). Only if we determine that no reasonable person could take the view of the trial court, are we authorized to reverse. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
While on the cold record we may have decided the custody issue the other way, we believe the trial judge could have concluded that the father was a good parent before the separation of the parties; that the child had lived in the same home environment since his birth and would be better off continuing in that environment (including the child's private school); that the child wanted to remain in that environment and with the father; that the child was old enough (by now a teenager) and mature enough to be involved in the decision-making process; and that the father had devoted substantial attention to the child and his activities since the separation. The child had been in the temporary custody of the father for the approximate two-year period between the time the mother left and the final judgment was entered. On the other hand, it is apparent that the father reacted emotionally and immaturely to the wife's departure and improperly used the child as a means of taking out his anger against his wife. We simply believe the trial judge was the one to balance these considerations. Barnhill v. Barnhill, 353 So.2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). We find no abuse of discretion on the child custody or support issue.
We also find no abuse of discretion on the credit card issue. Neither party submitted proof of the actual charges made on the account. Rather, both testified that they had paid their part of the obligation. With the record in this posture, we do not believe an abuse of discretion has been demonstrated.
ANSTEAD and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
LETTS, J., dissents with opinion.
. We caution, however, that the issue of custody may be revisited by the trial court if the court's expectations of the father as a proper custodian should not be borne out. The trial court also has the option of appointing a guardian ad litem if subsequent circumstances justify it.