Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Kathy R. MUNSON, Appellant, v. Randy H. MUNSON, Appellee.
Kathy R. Munson appeals a partial final judgment in this action for dissolution of marriage. The judgment awarded the couple shared parental responsibility for their two children, but awarded primary residential care to the husband, Randy H. Munson. In addition to the two children of this marriage, who are between the ages of five and ten, Ms. Munson has a teenage daughter from a prior marriage who resides with her. There is evidence of bonding among these three children. Ms. Munson argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it decided to separate the two children of this marriage from her older daughter.
The trial court considered all the factors delineated in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes (1995). Although courts generally prefer to keep siblings together, there are circumstances warranting separation. See Griffith v. Griffith, 627 So.2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). When family structures are complex, and the trial court does not have jurisdiction over all the children and all the parents, there can be no rigid rule requiring half-siblings to remain together in a single residence. The bonding among such children is certainly an “other fact,” see § 61.13(3)(k), Fla. Stat. (1995), that the court may consider relevant to its decision, but it is not the controlling factor. The trial court considered the bonds among the children as a factor in this case, but decided that, in light of all the relevant factors, the best interests of the children would be served if the husband had primary residential custody. We cannot conclude that no reason able judge would have made this discretionary decision. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND, Judge.
PATTERSON, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 96-04538.
Decided: November 21, 1997
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida,Second District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)