Mize v. Mize

77 Citing cases

  1. MacConnell v. Cascante

    668 So. 2d 668 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 8 times
    Concluding that in addition to the Mize (or section 61.13 and 61.13001) factors, โ€œwhere the final judgment incorporates a prohibition against the relocation of the child, the parent with primary residential responsibility must show a change of circumstances to justify the relocationโ€

    We agree with former husband that the trial court's order allowing the former wife to relocate with Crystal to Costa Rica is deficient because the court failed to specifically analyze the so-called Mize factors in the order itself. In Mize v. Mize, 621 So.2d 417 (Fla. 1993), the supreme court set out six factors which must be considered in determining whether to permit the custodial parent to move. These six factors are:

  2. Russenberger v. Russenberger

    654 So. 2d 207 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 7 times
    In Russenberger, the opinion noted "We recognize that our reading of Mize may conflict with the reading given Mize by our colleagues of the Fourth District.

    In the proposed schedule, Mr. Russenberger generally would have been entitled to visitation (i) every other weekend, with alternating visitation weekends being exercisable in Pensacola and within the state of New York; (ii) alternating Easter, Christmas, and Thanksgiving holidays; (iii) Father's Day weekend; (iv) every spring school break; and (v) five continuous weeks during the summer vacation period. In a 13 page order, the lower court expressly considered the supreme court's decision in Mize v. Mize, 621 So.2d 417 (Fla. 1993), and, after discussing in detail the application to the facts of this case of each of the factors set forth in Mize, the lower court prohibited relocation. The lower court further ordered that the court's standard visitation schedule would be imposed on the parties because of the difficulties experienced regarding visitation.

  3. Russenberger v. Russenberger

    669 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1996)   Cited 21 times
    In Russenberger, the supreme court recognized that in Mize v. Mize, 621 So.2d 417 (Fla. 1993), the court had adopted a presumption in favor of allowing good-faith relocation, and that the primary concern was the best interest of the child which was to be evaluated in accordance with the six factors contained in Hill v. Hill, 548 So.2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 560 So.2d 233 (Fla. 1990).

    ANSTEAD, Justice. We have for review Russenberger v. Russenberger, 654 So.2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), based on conflict with Tremblay v. Tremblay, 638 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), and Mize v. Mize, 621 So.2d 417 (Fla. 1993). We have jurisdiction.

  4. Card v. Card

    659 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that if a mother demonstrates that the relocation complied with the requirements of Mize and was not for vindictiveness, the trial court's order denying the move should be reversed.

    He would sometimes travel from Ocala to Tampa just for the chance to spend ten or more minutes with his son. He testified that of the 25 weekends during which he did not have court-ordered visitation he probably spent 20 of them visiting his child anyway at the YMCA where the former wife worked. In Mize v. Mize, 621 So.2d 417 (Fla. 1993), the supreme court held: We adopt the approach articulated in Hill v. Hill, 548 So.2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review denied, 560 So.2d 233 (Fla. 1990).

  5. Mahnke v. Rice

    703 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 1 times

    We reverse the final order entered by the trial court denying the appellant's motion to modify a final judgment of dissolution. A majority of the panel agrees that Mize v. Mize, 621 So.2d 417 (Fla. 1993) controls this case. A majority also agrees that a new hearing must be held.

  6. Willey v. Willey

    683 So. 2d 647 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 6 times

    First is the strong policy of shared parental responsibility as articulated by the "[l]egislature's determination that the best interests of children are served by frequent and continuing contact with both parents." Mize v. Mize, 621 So.2d 417, 420 (Fla. 1993) (Barkett, J., concurring); see ยง 61.13(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (1995). Second is the policy allowing relocation.

  7. Stockburger v. Stockburger

    633 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 5 times
    Concluding that extended visits may serve the parental relationship better than the typical weekly visit or at least be sufficient to sustain a close parental relationship

    In denying the mother's petition, the trial court made written findings pursuant to the seminal case of Hill v. Hill, 548 So.2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 560 So.2d 233 (Fla. 1990). Hill's approach was specifically adopted by the supreme court in Mize v. Mize, 621 So.2d 417 (Fla. 1993), several months after the trial court's decision. Hill requires a trial court to weigh and consider the following six factors in deciding whether to allow a custodial parent to relocate with a minor child to another geographical area:

  8. Jones v. Jones

    633 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 8 times

    Our decision in Jones v. Jones, 606 So.2d 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) was quashed by the supreme court in Jones v. Jones, 624 So.2d 263 (Fla. 1993). The case was remanded to us for reconsideration in light of that court's opinion in Mize v. Mize, 621 So.2d 417 (Fla. 1993), remanded, 623 So.2d 636 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). The parties met and became engaged to be married in Germany while Curtis was serving in the Army. Heide, a registered nurse, was and is a German national.

  9. Hagins v. Hagins

    678 So. 2d 479 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 3 times

    What does she give up? Is it merely her right to assert custody under the original judgment or does she "forfeit" the right to compete for custody at a "best interest hearing" because she has exercised her right to relocate even without court approval? Mize v. Mize, 621 So.2d 417 (Fla. 1993). If the answer is the latter, then the constitutional issue of equal protection comes into play.

  10. Paske v. Paske

    670 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

    Elizabeth Paske, the former wife, petitioned the trial court to allow her to relocate to California with the parties' minor child. In its order permitting the move, the court stated that because it had granted the wife sole parental responsibility, Mize v. Mize, 621 So.2d 417 (Fla. 1993), was inapplicable. Mize sets out six factors that "trial courts must consider and weigh" when deciding whether to allow a custodial parent to relocate with a minor child.