Ford v. Ford
1997 WL 536010, 700 So. 2d 191 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court commits a reversible abuse of discretion in a child custody determination when it fails to make findings or give appropriate weight to extensive evidence of domestic violence perpetrated by one parent, and instead misapplies statutory "friendly parent" factors to penalize the abused parent for conduct justified by fear of the abuser.
Facts:
- Tara M. Ford and Jay Alan Ford were married for approximately three years and had one daughter, Kylee, who was twenty months old at the time of their dissolution proceedings.
- During the marriage, Jay Ford committed multiple acts of physical violence against Tara Ford.
- In one incident, while Tara was four to five months pregnant, Jay threw her on the floor, shoved her in the stomach, and kicked her in the side.
- On Mother's Day, 1994, Jay threatened to "tear off his wife's head" in front of his family and later admitted to his sister-in-law that he had hit Tara again.
- Following the Mother's Day incident, Jay enrolled in a Family Violence Intervention Program where he identified his wife as the "victim" of his domestic violence and admitted to a history of violence against a previous wife and his parents.
- The final act of violence leading to the couple's separation occurred on October 26, 1994, when Jay threw Tara on the floor and kicked her, causing her to flee the home with their daughter in fear for their safety.
- After the separation, Jay took Tara's car from her grandmother's home and left in its place a different vehicle that he knew was likely to be repossessed, which it was the day before a scheduled visitation.
- During legal proceedings, Jay offered a contrived definition of the word "strike" to justify inconsistencies between his deposition testimony and his in-court admissions of slapping his wife and pulling her hair.
Procedural Posture:
- Tara Ford and Jay Ford were parties to a dissolution of marriage action in a Florida trial court.
- Following a temporary relief hearing, the trial court granted Jay Ford supervised visitation, finding that Tara Ford had a 'justifiable reason to fear' him.
- A subsequent temporary order granted shared parental responsibility, with the child residing primarily with Tara Ford.
- After a six-day final hearing, the trial court issued a final judgment of dissolution, awarding primary residential custody of the child to Jay Ford.
- The trial court also denied Tara Ford's claims for alimony and attorney's fees and made other financial rulings.
- Tara Ford, as Appellant, appealed the final judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by awarding primary residential custody of a child to the father when it fails to address substantial evidence of the father's pattern of domestic violence against the mother and instead finds the mother less suitable for custody based on her perceived manipulation of visitation?
Opinions:
Majority - Polen, Judge
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion. An award of primary physical residence constitutes an abuse of discretion when it is arbitrary, unreasonable, and based on findings unsupported by competent substantial evidence. The trial court's decision was fatally flawed by its "deafening silence" on the central issue of the husband's established pattern of domestic violence. The court misapplied the statutory best-interest factors, particularly the "friendly parent" provisions, by failing to offset the mother's alleged manipulation of visitation with her "justifiable reason to fear the Husband." The court's finding that the mental health factor favored the father was contrary to the overwhelming record evidence of his violent and abusive history. A failure to properly apply the law by ignoring such crucial evidence renders the custody determination an abuse of discretion.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing that a trial court's failure to address substantial, corroborated evidence of domestic violence in a custody dispute can constitute a reversible abuse of discretion. It clarifies that "friendly parent" statutes cannot be mechanistically applied to punish a victim of domestic violence for behavior, such as interfering with visitation, that is rooted in a justifiable fear for their or their child's safety. The decision strongly signals to trial courts that the context of domestic abuse is a critical and often dispositive factor in weighing the statutory best interests of the child, and a judgment silent on this issue when the evidence is abundant is highly vulnerable on appeal.
