Case Name: Diana PEACOCK, Appellant, v. Donald PEACOCK, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2007-12-12
Citations: 973 So. 2d 501
Docket Number: No. 3D06-737
Parties: Diana PEACOCK, Appellant, v. Donald PEACOCK, Appellee.
Judges: Before COPE and WELLS, JJ., and FLETCHER, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 973
Pages: 501–503

Head Matter:
Diana PEACOCK, Appellant, v. Donald PEACOCK, Appellee.
No. 3D06-737.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec. 12, 2007.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 21, 2008.
Greenman & Manz, Marathon; Greene Smith McMillan and Cynthia L. Greene, Miami, for appellant.
Lauri Waldman Ross, Miami, for appel-lee.
Before COPE and WELLS, JJ., and FLETCHER, Senior Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Diana Peacock, the former wife, has appealed a judgment of dissolution of marriage, which awarded custody of the three minor children to the former husband Donald Peacock. We affirm.
The final judgment tells us that the trial court carefully considered the statutory factors listed in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (2005), in reaching its conclusions that it would be in the best interests of the children that the parties share parental responsibility for the children and that the father be the primary residential parent. The trial court did not list or explain in its final judgment the nature of its considerations as to the several factors of section 61.13(3). The former wife argues that this was error. We disagree. Section 61.13(3) does not mandate written findings, see Castillo v. Castillo, 950 So.2d 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); cf. Velazquez v. Millan, 963 So.2d 852, 854-55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), and the record contains substantial competent evidence in support of the court's decision. See Rodriguez v. Williams, 911 So.2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Miller v. Miller, 842 So.2d 168 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
We are unable to agree with the partial dissent because the parties have not requested, in the trial court or this Court, that the daughters be placed separately with the mother.
We have examined the record and conclude that there is no reversible error as to the other point on appeal. Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed, as modified.
COPE, J., and FLETCHER, Senior Judge, concur.
. We strike the second sentence of paragraph 30 of the judgment because it refers to learning difficulties of one of the daughters, when there was no evidence that the daughter had any learning difficulties.