Case Name: Rita L. MENDEZ, Appellant, v. Ignacio N. MENDEZ, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1987-04-28
Citations: 527 So. 2d 820
Docket Number: No. 85-2807
Parties: Rita L. MENDEZ, Appellant, v. Ignacio N. MENDEZ, Appellee.
Judges: Before HUBBART, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 527
Pages: 820–824

Head Matter:
Rita L. MENDEZ, Appellant, v. Ignacio N. MENDEZ, Appellee.
No. 85-2807.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
April 28, 1987.
On Motion for Rehearing and Rehearing En banc Denied Nov. 10, 1987.
Certiorari Denied March 7, 1988.
See 108 S.Ct. 1122.
Frumkes & Greene and Cynthia L. Greene, Miami, for appellant.
Maurice Jay Kutner, Miami, for appellee.
Robin H. Greene and Steven Forester, Miami, for American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida, as amicus curiae.
Before HUBBART, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The record in this case does not support the appellant's contention that the trial court made the father the primary residential parent of the parties' minor child solely because the mother is a practicing Jehovah's Witness. Instead, the record reflects that the trial court, after considering the testimony of numerous experts, the parties and their relatives and friends, and a guardian ad litem appointed to represent the minor, considered, as it had a right to do, Rogers v. Rogers, 490 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), the effect on the child caused by the conflicting religious beliefs of the parents and, in ruling, conscientiously avoided any interference with the right of the non-custodial parent to practice her religion and avoided the imposition on her of an obligation to enforce the religious beliefs of the father. Although the evidence is in conflict on the issue of whether the best interests of the child would be better served with the father or with the mother as primary residential parent, there is more than ample competent evidence to support the decision of the trial court in placing that responsibility upon the father and giving extensive visitation rights to the mother.
Affirmed.
HUBBART and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ., concur.