Miller v. Miller, 842 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Miller v. Miller, 842 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Quick Summary

A trial court possesses broad discretion in child custody matters and its decision is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

In a dissolution of marriage, the wife appeals the trial court's designation of the husband as primary residential custodian, arguing the decision lacks record support and violates statutory requirements. The court addresses whether the trial court abused its discretion in allocating custody. Applying the standard that trial courts possess broad discretion in child custody matters, the appellate court reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. The court determines that the trial court's findings satisfy statutory requirements and are supported by substantial competent evidence. Because reasonable persons could differ on the ruling and the appellate court does not reweigh evidence, the court affirms the trial court's judgment.

25 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Michael S. Melton v. Sandra M. Melton, 420 So. 3d 1086 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003 2014 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 169 Reviewing trial court discretion in child custody matters19 citing casesIt is well settled that a trial court has broad discretion in child custody matters, and its decision in that regard is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.5 citing courts put it this way · 18 listed here
  • Michael S. Melton v. Sandra M. Melton, 420 So. 3d 1086 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025).published
    (It is well settled that a trial court has broad discretion in child custody matters . . . .)
  • Lori Michele Hoyt v. Brian Andrew Chalker, 228 So. 3d 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).published
    (It is well settled that a trial court has broad discretion in child custody matters, and its decision in that regard is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.)
  • Hudson v. Hudson, 209 So. 3d 656 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).published
    (It is well settled that a trial court has broad discretion in child custody matters, and its decision in that regard is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.)
  • Lynette Logreira v. Efrain Logreira, 322 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).published
    Miller v. Miller, 842 So. 2d 168, 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (citation omitted).
  • Meggan Elizabeth Miller v. Matthew Lee Miller, 277 So. 3d 725 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).published
    Miller v. Miller, 842 So. 2d 168, 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
  • Pena v. Rodriguez, 273 So. 3d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).published
    See § 90.605(1), Fla. Stat. (2018) (“Before testifying, each witness shall declare that he or she will testify truthfully, by taking an oath or affirmation . . .”); Houck v. State, 421 So. 2d 1113, 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (“An unsworn wit…
  • Betty Caitlin Nicole Smith v. Zachary Taylor Daniel, 246 So. 3d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).published
    J.N.S. v. A.M.A., 194 So. 3d 559, 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Miller v. Miller, 842 So. 2d 168, 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
  • Hailey A. Neville v. Ryan A. McKibben, 227 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).published
    Miller v. Miller, 842 So.2d 168, 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Adair v. Adair, 720 So.2d 316, 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
  • J.L.B. v. S.J.B., 135 So. 3d 468 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).published
    Schwieterman v. Schwieterman, 114 So.3d 984, 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (citing Miller v. Miller, 842 So.2d 168, 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)).
  • Schwieterman v. Schwieterman, 114 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).published
    Miller v. Miller, 842 So.2d 168, 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
Show 8 more citing cases
  • Ferri v. Apple, 900 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).published
    “Despite a conflict in the evidence, an appellate court will not disturb a trial court’s custody decision unless there is no substantial competent evidence to support that decision.” Miller v. Miller, 842 So.2d 168, 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…
  • Burnham v. Burnham, 884 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).published
    See Artuso v. Dick, 843 So.2d 942, 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Miller v. Miller, 842 So.2d 168, 169, 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). (b) Attorney's Fees The judgment states that the former wife has established a need for contribution to the attorney…
  • Mary Grace Vinson v. Tommy Junior Vinson, 282 So. 3d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).published 2 cites
    Moreover, although section 61.13(3) does indeed set forth a lengthy list of factors concerning the best interests of the child that the trial court should evaluate in determining issues of shared parental responsibility, “there is no statu…
  • Elisia D. Preudhomme v. Kenneth Preudhomme, 245 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).published
    (noting that a trial court has broad discretion in child custody matters, and the appellate court must affirm if competent, substantial evidence supports the court’s findings, even if there is conflicting evidence)
  • Wojciechowski v. Clark, 188 So. 3d 919 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).published 2 cites
    See Schwieterman v. Schwieterman, 114 So. 3d 984, 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (citing Miller v. Miller, 842 So. 2d 168, 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)).
  • Neuman v. Harper, 106 So. 3d 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).published
    (noting a trial court’s decision regarding child custody matters is reviewed for an abuse of discretion)
  • Bainbridge v. Pratt, 68 So. 3d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).published 2 cites
    See Miller v. Miller, 842 So.2d 168, 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Adair v. Adair, 720 So.2d 316, 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
  • Dudley v. Dudley, 899 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).published
    See Miller v. Miller, 842 So.2d 168, 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sonia Simakova MILLER, Appellant,
v.
Daniel E. MILLER, Appellee.
1D01-4899.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Mar 4, 2003.
Published opinion
842 So. 2d 168
2003 WL 716664
Hawkes.
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published

[*169] Ross A. Keene, Pensacola, for Appellant.

E. Jane Brehany, Pensacola, for Appellee.

HAWKES, J.

Appellant, Sonia Miller (the Wife) appeals the trial court's final order of dissolution of marriage which designated Appellee, Daniel Miller (the Husband) the primary residential custodian of the parties' minor children. As grounds, the Wife argues the trial court abused its discretion by designating the Husband primary residential custodian because the reasons cited by the trial court in support of its designation are not supported by the record, and do not satisfy the statutory requirements for custody determinations as set forth in sections 61.13(3)(a),(j), Florida Statutes. We find the trial court's reasons satisfy the statutory requirements of section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, and the record contains a plethora of substantial competent evidence to support its designation. Accordingly, we affirm.

Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, requires a trial court, in deciding issues of shared parental responsibility and primary residence, to evaluate "all factors affecting the welfare and interests of the child" to determine the child's best interest. Adair v. Adair, 720 So.2d 316, 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Mian v. Mian, 775 So.2d 357, 358-359 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). It is well settled that a trial court has broad discretion in child custody matters, and its decision in that regard is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Adair, 720 So.2d at 317; see also Sullivan v. Sullivan, 668 So.2d 329, 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Where reasonable persons could differ as to the trial court's ruling, there is no abuse of discretion. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980). "Despite a conflict in the evidence, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court's custody decision unless there is no substantial competent evidence to support that decision." Adair, 720 So.2d at 317; see also Undercuffler v. Undercuffler, 798 So.2d 867, 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Moreover, "there is no statutory requirement that the trial court make specific written findings in a custody decision." Adair, 720 So.2d at 317 (citing Murphy v. Murphy, 621 So.2d 455, 456-457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)); see also Ford v. Ford, 700 So.2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

Sub judice, the Wife argues the trial court failed to give weight to evidence indicating she should be designated primary residential custodian. We acknowledge the record contains evidence which could support a ruling designating her primary residential custodian. However, as this court has previously stated "[i]t is not our function to reweigh the evidence or to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court." Cole Taylor Bank v. Shannon, 772 So.2d 546, 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (quoting Smith v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 681 So.2d 871 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)); Clegg v. Chipola Aviation, Inc., 458 So.2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The appellate court merely determines whether the trial court's judgment is supported by substantial competent evidence. Cole Taylor Bank, 772 So.2d at 552; Smith, 681 So.2d at 871; Clegg, 458 So.2d at 1187.

In this case, the trial judge was faced with the always difficult task of determining which parent should be designated primary residential custodian, where the evidence could favor either parent. Despite there being no requirement, the trial judge provided a thorough, written evaluation of[*170] each of the factors contained in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes. Each of the trial judge's findings were supported by substantial competent evidence. We commend the trial judge for his very thorough consideration of each element of section 61.13(3), and the detailed written opinion delineating each factor considered. The final order of the trial judge is

AFFIRMED.

BARFIELD and POLSTON, JJ., concur.