Case Name: In re the Marriage of Shirleen SULLIVAN, Appellant, v. William John SULLIVAN, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-08-21
Citations: 604 So. 2d 878
Docket Number: No. 91-3981
Parties: In re the Marriage of Shirleen SULLIVAN, Appellant, v. William John SULLIVAN, Appellee.
Judges: SHIVERS, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 604
Pages: 878–880

Head Matter:
In re the Marriage of Shirleen SULLIVAN, Appellant, v. William John SULLIVAN, Appellee.
No. 91-3981.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Aug. 21, 1992.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 25, 1992.
Robert Moeller, Cross City, for appellant.
No appearance by appellee.

Opinion:
WOLF, Judge.
Appellant challenges the trial court's decision to rotate physical custody of the minor child every two weeks until the child reaches school age. We affirm.
Rotation of residential custody of a child is presumptively not in the best interest of the child. In the Interest of S.M.H., 531 So.2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA1988). A trial court, however, may find special circumstances which justify rotating physical residence. Parker v. Parker, 553 So.2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
One of the factors to be considered is the parents' attitude toward each other and how these attitudes affect the children. Parker, supra at 311. In the instant case, the trial court considered the wife's failure to allow visitation with the husband, her original denial that the husband was the father, as well as her demeanor during the hearing. The trial court expressly found as follows:
[T]he child is at a young and impressionable age and given the hostility evident in the mother's attitude, demeanor and testimony, the court is concerned whether or not she will imbue the child with her attitude against the father. In addition, the child will not suffer school problems since that will not be a consideration for over four years. The court has considered the length of each period of custody and finds two weeks with one parent and two weeks with the other to be conducive to good bonding between both mother and father and does not find the length of time to be a hardship on either parent. The parties do not live very far apart and the father has agreed to be responsible for transportation of the minor child.
Under these circumstances, as in Parker, supra, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making its custody determination.
We affirm.
SHIVERS, J., concurs.
MINER, J., specially concurring with written opinion.