Case Name: Diana Christine DYKES, Appellant, v. Roger Francis DYKES, Jr., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-02-04
Citations: 395 So. 2d 188
Docket Number: No. 79-2
Parties: Diana Christine DYKES, Appellant, v. Roger Francis DYKES, Jr., Appellee.
Judges: FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 395
Pages: 188–192

Head Matter:
Diana Christine DYKES, Appellant, v. Roger Francis DYKES, Jr., Appellee.
No. 79-2.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Feb. 4, 1981.
Rehearing Denied March 16, 1981.
Francis B. Burch, J. Edward Davis and J. Calvin Jenkins, Jr., of Weinberg & Green, Baltimore, Md., and Kenneth A. Studstill, Titusville, for appellant.
Kenneth W. McIntosh of Stenstrom, Davis, McIntosh & Julian, and Marcia K. Lip-pincott, Sanford, for appellee.

Opinion:
ORFINGER, Judge.
Appellant questions a final judgment in a dissolution proceeding awarding custody of the young child of the marriage to the father. We affirm.
Appellant raises three points on appeal: (1) did the trial court abuse its discretion in awarding custody to the father instead of to the mother, (2) did the court have jurisdiction to make a custody award under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, and (3) was there such judicial impropriety and undue influence as to prevent the trial court from rendering an independent and unbiased decision?
Disposing of the jurisdictional question first, the record clearly reveals jurisdiction in the Florida courts. The child was born in Florida on November 18, 1974, and had lived with his parents in Florida for more than a year until December 15, 1975. The next six months were spent in Maryland (appellant's home) while the father was preparing to enter Pennsylvania State University; they then lived in Pennsylvania for about one and one-half years while the appellee was enrolled in the University as a full time out-of-state student. The paternal grandparents lived in Florida, while the maternal grandparents lived in Maryland. When the marriage broke up, the father returned to Florida with the child. In awarding temporary custody to the father, the trial court found that Florida was the child's home state and that it was in the child's best interest that Florida assume jurisdiction.
Appellant insisted that Maryland was the child's home state, and after the Florida proceedings had commenced and she had not prevailed in the temporary custody hearing, she filed a dissolution proceeding in Maryland, requesting custody of the child. The Maryland court declined to exercise jurisdiction and deferred to Florida. There is substantial evidence justifying the trial court's conclusion that Florida had jurisdiction.
The child of the parties was three years old when the dissolution proceedings were filed. Appellant contends that she is a fit anid proper person to have custody of her child and that under the "tender years" doctrine she should have been given preference in the custody award. She therefore asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding custody to the father.
Although section 61.13(2)(b), Florida Statutes, requires that the father of the child shall be given equal consideration as the mother in awarding custody, it appears to be the law of this state that other essential factors being equal, the mother of an infant of tender years should receive prime consideration for custody. Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So.2d 22 (Fla.1975). In his extensive findings of fact the trial court recognized this principle, but found that the essential factors were not equal and that the "evidence militates strongly in favor of the father."
The entire voluminous record in this case has been reviewed, and if we were the triers of fact we might very well have reached an opposite result on the custody issue. Nevertheless, this does not give us the unbridled power to reverse the trial judge.
[T]his court cannot, in any type of case, overturn the decision of a Chancellor made in the exercise of his judicial discretion in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse thereof; and, in a child custody case, the opportunity of the Chancellor to observe the demeanor and personalities of the parties and their witnesses and to feel forces, powers and influences that cannot be discerned by merely reading the record, assumes a new importance because of the many intangibles that must be evaluated in deciding the delicate question of child custody. Grant v. Corbitt, 95 So.2d 25, at 28.
Dinkel, 322 So.2d at 24.
Since there is competent, substantial evidence to support the findings of the trial judge, we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in finding that the award of custody to the father rather than to the mother was in the best interest of the child. Maran v. Maran, 384 So.2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Marshall v. Marshall, 375 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
In an amended motion for rehearing or new trial after the final judgment, appellant contended that because appellee's father was a circuit judge in the circuit where the action was heard, and because of his alleged "intervention" in the proceedings, the appellee was not afforded justice and the ultimate custody determination was "fore-ordained". The fact that appellee's father was a judge in the same circuit was known to all parties and the trial judge before, during and after the trial of this cause. No change of venue was ever requested. At no time did appellant ever ask the trial judge to recuse himself or even suggest that the trial judge might be embarrassed or otherwise inhibited in his rulings.
The trial judge openly discussed the matter with the parties and their attorneys and at the beginning of the trial offered to recuse himself if either party felt that because appellee's father was a local judge a fair trial would not be had. No one took him up on that offer. There are no allegations of impropriety directed at appellee's father—only innuendos, insinuations and conclusions. Moreover, and most important in our decision, is the complete absence of any allegation or intimation that there was any attempt to influence the trial judge or that the trial judge was in fact influenced by any consideration outside of the record.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., concurs.
SHARP, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part with opinion.
. Section 61.1302, et seq., Florida Statutes (Supp.1978).