From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Conners v. Mullins

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Feb 10, 2010
27 So. 3d 199 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Summary

explaining that on remand the trial court need not consider “whether [it] would have permitted the relocation in the first place but whether the actual relocation was in the child's best interests pursuant to the factors set forth in section 61.13001”

Summary of this case from Milton v. Milton

Opinion

No. 1D09-2292.

February 10, 2010.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Leon County, Charles Dodson, J.

Allison M. Perry, Law Office of Allison M. Perry, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Shawn Mullins, pro se, Appellee.


Appellant, Christine Conners, appeals a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. We agree with appellant that the trial court, in ordering her to return to Tallahassee with the parties' child, employed an incorrect legal standard. In evaluating the child's best interests pursuant to section 61.13001(7), Florida Statutes, the trial court primarily focused on how it would have ruled on the issue of relocation had it been faced with the issue prior to appellant's move to Albany, New York, which occurred while appellant was pregnant with the parties' child. However, because the relocation had already occurred when appellee, Shawn Mullins, petitioned for relief, the pertinent question was not whether the trial court would have permitted the relocation in the first place but whether the actual relocation was in the child's best interests pursuant to the factors set forth in section 61.13001(7). See generally In re B.T.G., 993 So.2d 1140, 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (noting that neither party offered any testimony concerning the "impact of the relocation to the Seattle area [which had already occurred] on the children"); Shafer v. Shafer, 898 So.2d 1053, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (noting that the trial court weighed a number of factors in deciding that the child's move to Orlando was not in the child's best interests and that the court found that the father's close relationship with his son would be affected if the son "continues to live in Orlando").

Accordingly, we REVERSE the final judgment and REMAND the case for reconsideration on the relocation issue.

VAN NORTWICK and CLARK, JJ. and BERGER, WENDY, Associate Judge, concur.


Summaries of

Conners v. Mullins

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Feb 10, 2010
27 So. 3d 199 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

explaining that on remand the trial court need not consider “whether [it] would have permitted the relocation in the first place but whether the actual relocation was in the child's best interests pursuant to the factors set forth in section 61.13001”

Summary of this case from Milton v. Milton

explaining that the section 61.13001 factors reveal whether relocation is in the child's best interest

Summary of this case from Raulerson v. Wright
Case details for

Conners v. Mullins

Case Details

Full title:Christine CONNERS, Wife, Appellant, v. Shawn MULLINS, Husband, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Feb 10, 2010

Citations

27 So. 3d 199 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Citing Cases

Milton v. Milton

This would further subject her to possible contempt proceedings.That said, the parties were not prepared to…

Raulerson v. Wright

In connection with the second finding, the court is required to consider the factors enumerated in section…