From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ward v. Hysell

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Feb 21, 2001
26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 533 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Summary

rejecting father's argument that trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter order awarding permanent custody of minor child to grandparents pursuant to custody agreement executed by parents on ground that trial court has inherent jurisdiction to determine issues of custody

Summary of this case from Harrier v. Warmke

Opinion


777 So.2d 1206 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 2001) 26 Fla. L. Weekly D 533 JAMES WARD, Appellant, v. CHARLES O. HYSELL, LINDA K. HYSELL and CONNIE WARD, Appellees. No. 3D00-687. Florida Court of Appeals, Third District. February 21, 2001

       An appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Moie J. Tendrich, Judge. LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 98-21511.

       Jose M. Medina, Miami, for appellant.

       Dennis E. Stone, Homestead, for appellees Charles O. Hysell and Linda K. Hysell.

       Before JORGENSON, GODERICH and SHEVIN, JJ.

       PER CURIAM.

       The father, James Ward, appeals from a final order awarding permanent custody of the minor child to the maternal grandparents pursuant to a custody agreement executed by both parents. He contends that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter this order. We affirm, without making a determination as to the validity of the custody agreement, finding that the trial court has inherent jurisdiction to determine issues of custody. Richardson v. Richardson, 766 So.2d 1036, 1043 (Fla. 2000)("[I]n all custody cases, trial courts have broad continuing jurisdiction to ensure the protection of children within the court's jurisdiction and over matters related to the well-being of a child."); Cone v. Cone, 62 So.2d 907 (Fla. 1953), overruled on other grounds by, Richardson, 766 So.2d at 1043; Waters v. Waters, 578 So.2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Golstein v. Golstein, 441 So.2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). However, because the issue raised by the father regarding the validity of the custody agreement was not fully litigated below, this affirmance is without prejudice for the father to re-raise this issue during the currently active dissolution proceedings.

       Affirmed.


Summaries of

Ward v. Hysell

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Feb 21, 2001
26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 533 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

rejecting father's argument that trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter order awarding permanent custody of minor child to grandparents pursuant to custody agreement executed by parents on ground that trial court has inherent jurisdiction to determine issues of custody

Summary of this case from Harrier v. Warmke
Case details for

Ward v. Hysell

Case Details

Full title:JAMES WARD, Appellant, v. CHARLES O. HYSELL, LINDA K. HYSELL and CONNIE…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Feb 21, 2001

Citations

26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 533 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 533
77 So. 2d 1206

Citing Cases

Ward v. Ward

This Court subsequently affirmed the order denying the father's motion to vacate without prejudice for the…

Harrier v. Warmke

Waters v. Waters, 578 So.2d 874, 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (reversing dismissal of grandparents' petition…