Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

702 So. 2d 1319

Kane v. Dizney

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 21, 1997

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1997-11-21

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 2008

1 state decisions

Relies on Andino v. State · Tucker v. Greenberg

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-11-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN, C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur.ANTOON, J., dissents, with opinion.
ANTOON, Judge,

¶2dissenting.

¶3I respectfully dissent. In my view, the facts in this ease do not justify a modification of custody under the best interest of the children standard. Section 61.13(4)(e), Florida Statutes (1995), provides the trial court with several options with regard to the imposition of sanctions on a parent who fails to honor the other parent’s visitation rights, the most drastic of which is a change in primary residence or custody of the children. However, this extreme sanction cannot be imposed unless the change in custody is also in the best interest of the children. Here, the mother failed to sustain her burden of proving that changing the children’s primary residence is in their best interest. Accordingly, I would reverse. See Williams v. Williams, 676 So.2d 493 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Tucker v. Greenberg, 674 So.2d 807 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

/702/so2d/1319 · .json · Public domain