Case Name: Bette HEFFERNAN, Appellant, v. Jane H. GOLDMAN, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1971-09-09
Citations: 256 So. 2d 522
Docket Number: No. 70-916
Parties: Bette HEFFERNAN, Appellant, v. Jane H. GOLDMAN, Appellee.
Judges: REED, C. J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 256
Pages: 522–524

Head Matter:
Bette HEFFERNAN, Appellant, v. Jane H. GOLDMAN, Appellee.
No. 70-916.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Sept. 9, 1971.
Thomas S. Kirk Orlando, for appellant.
David W. Hedrick of Giles, Hedrick & Robinson, Orlando, for appellee.

Opinion:
OWEN, Judge.
Appellant filed in the circuit court a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking custody of two of her minor children, Judith Anne Goldman and Laurie Lee Goldman, ages 14 and 12, respectively. These children had been in the actual custody of their natural father, Abe Goldman, since shortly after appellant and Abe Goldman were divorced in 1960, such custody being with appellant's consent even though she had been awarded custody by the divorce decree. Abe Goldman married appellee in December, 1969. Thereafter the children lived with their father and appellee until Abe Goldman's death in June 1970, after which they continued to remain in the custody of appellee. It was shortly thereafter that appellant brought this action.
After hearing the testimony offered on behalf of the parties, including that of the minor children indicating their desire to remain with their stepmother, the court awarded their custody to the appellee on the finding that such would serve the best interest of the children. Appellant was granted the right of visitation at all reasonable and proper times, and the judgment expressly retained jurisdiction in the court to enter further orders touching upon the custody of the minor children as might from time to time appear to be for their best interest and welfare.
The issue presented by appellant is whether the judgment is contrary to the law and the evidence. It is not contrary to law to award custody of minor children to one other than the natural parent when to do so would be for the best interest and welfare of the children. For example, see Eades v. Dorio, Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 232. Nor is the judgment contrary to the evidence in this case. Without discussing the nature of the evidence, suffice it to say that it is such that the trial judge could have awarded custody to either appellant or appellee, and irrespective of for whom he decided there would be no clear showing that he abused his judicial discretion so as to warrant our overturning his decision. Grant v. Corbitt, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 25.
The judgment is affirmed.
REED, C. J., concurs.
CROSS, J., dissents, with opinion.