In Interest of W.H., 356 So.2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). As for the trial court's findings on unfitness and related issues, we could not conclude from this record that the trial court acted arbitrarily or abused its discretion. We are therefore admonished by applicable law to presume the correctness of the judgment, Justice v. Van Eepoel, 132 So.2d 407 (Fla. 1961). We do so and affirm.
Essentially, the only question presented is whether the court ever has the right to make a provision for religious education in a final judgment for dissolution of marriage. As pointed out in Justice v. Van Eepoel, 132 So.2d 407 (Fla. 1961), the trial court must ". . . take into consideration . . . the age, health, sex and moral surroundings of the children, [and] the benefits of education and development . . ." Henderson v. Antonacci arises under the provisions of Declaration of Rights, § 5, of the 1885 Constitution.
The first is the reluctance of an appellate court to reverse a chancellor who has had an opportunity to observe the witnesses and has used his best judgment to do equity between the parties. Justice v. Van Eepoel, 132 So.2d 407, 409 (Fla. 1961): "Our own personal reactions at the appellate level are not the standards by which our judgment must be guided.
Although parents have the God-given right to the care, custody and companionship of their children, the right is not absolute but subject to the overriding principle that it is the ultimate welfare or best interest of the children which must prevail. Noeling v. State, Fla. 1956, 87 So.2d 593; Justice v. Van Eepoel, Fla. 1961, 132 So.2d 407; In re Pendarvis, Fla.App. 1961, 133 So.2d 424; Potvin v. Keller, Fla.App. 1974, 299 So.2d 149. After a careful scrutiny of the record on appeal, we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in determining that the best interest of the child would be commitment of his permanent custody to the appellee, as the evidence amply supported said ruling.
PER CURIAM. Affirmed on authority of Justice v. Van Eepoel, Fla. 1961, 132 So.2d 407. See also Reynolds v. Alderman, 72 Fla. 39, 72 So. 369; Witt v. Burford, 84 Fla. 201, 93 So. 186.
However, in cases such as the instant one, involving natural parents as opposed to other persons, Florida courts have stated repeatedly that the rights of parents are not to be lightly regarded, and that only in rare instances should custody be awarded to others. E.g., Justice v. Van Eepoel, Fla. 1961, 132 So.2d 407, 409-410. Generally, the persons to whom custody has been awarded other than the natural parent are close blood relatives of the child.
Willson v. Willson, Fla. 1951, 55 So.2d 905; Carrier v. Vermeulen, Fla.App. 1959, 114 So.2d 192; and Ritsi v. Ritsi, Fla.App. 1964, 160 So.2d 159. In adjudicating issues relating to the welfare of minors, the trial judge necessarily has a broad discretion, Johns v. Johns, Fla.App. 1959, 108 So.2d 784. His determination should not be disturbed on appeal unless he has acted arbitrarily or misconceived a controlling principle of law. Justice v. Van Eepoel, Fla. 1961, 132 So.2d 407 and Foster v. Sharpe, Fla.App. 1959, 114 So.2d 373. Such does not appear from the present record; therefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. Affirmed.