Young v. Hector
1998 WL 329401, 740 So. 2d 1153 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court's child custody determination will not be overturned on appeal if it is supported by substantial competent evidence, as appellate courts may not reweigh evidence or substitute their judgment for that of the trial court which has broad discretion to determine the best interests of the child.
Facts:
- Robert Young, an architect, and Alice Hector, an attorney, married in 1982 and had two daughters, born in 1985 and 1988.
- Throughout the marriage, the family employed household help, such as a live-in nanny or housekeeper, to assist with childcare.
- In 1989, the family relocated to Miami for Hector's legal career, where her income grew to over $300,000 per year.
- Between 1990 and 1993, Young was frequently away from the family for extended periods, including a 14-month absence for a treasure recovery project in New Mexico.
- Upon his permanent return to Florida in the fall of 1993, Young, who was largely unemployed, became more involved in the children's after-school activities, such as coaching soccer and leading a Brownie troop.
- After Young's return in 1993, the couple separated but continued to live in the marital home until Hector filed for divorce in May 1995.
Procedural Posture:
- Alice Hector filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Robert Young in a Florida trial court.
- Following a trial on all issues, the court entered a final judgment designating Hector as the primary residential parent of the two minor children.
- Young, the former husband, appealed the final judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
- A three-judge panel of the appellate court issued an opinion reversing the trial court's custody award.
- The District Court of Appeal subsequently granted a rehearing en banc, withdrawing the prior panel opinion.
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 to a mother with a demanding professional career over a father who acted as the primary daytime caretaker for the three years preceding the divorce, when substantial competent evidence shows the mother was the more constant and stable parental figure throughout the children's entire lives?
Opinions:
Majority - Green, J.
No. A trial court's custody determination must be affirmed if supported by substantial competent evidence, and an appellate court cannot reweigh that evidence. Here, the trial court's decision to award custody to Alice Hector was supported by the guardian ad litem's report and testimony, which cited three key factors: (1) Hector had been the more economically stable parent, demonstrating a consistent proclivity to remain employed; (2) she had been the more constant and dominant influence throughout the children's entire lives, whereas Young had been 'intensely absent and intensely present'; and (3) she demonstrated a superior ability to control her anger around the children. The court rejected the argument of gender bias, finding the trial judge's questions to Young about his unemployment were a logical inquiry into the family's financial situation, not evidence of a preconceived notion that fathers should not be primary caregivers.
Concurring - Levy, J.
No. The controlling legal principle is the standard of review, which requires affirming the trial court if its decision is supported by substantial competent evidence. While there was evidence that could have supported naming the father as the primary residential parent, there was more than substantial competent evidence to support the trial court's decision in favor of the mother. An appellate court's function is not to second-guess the trial court's weighing of conflicting evidence.
Concurring - Sorondo, J.
No. The father's appellate argument for continuity of his caretaking role is undermined by his own testimony at trial, where he suggested the children could temporarily stay with the mother while he returned to school to become employable. This constitutes invited error, as a party cannot complain on appeal about a ruling he invited the trial court to make. Furthermore, the final judgment does not significantly alter the children's daily routine or the established caretaking roles of the parents.
Dissenting - Schwartz, C.J.
Yes. The trial court's decision was dictated by the impermissible factor of gender bias. Had the genders been reversed—a hard-working male attorney and a stay-at-home mother architect—the father's claim for custody would have been 'laughed out of court.' The decision wrongly tampers with a pre-dissolution caretaking arrangement that was working well for the children, and improperly rests on a subjective and legally irrelevant assessment of the father's character and past conduct rather than on the children's best interests.
Dissenting - Nesbitt, J.
Yes. The trial court abused its discretion by ignoring the salient fact that the parties themselves had established an arrangement where the father was the primary caregiver for three years, a role to which the mother had acquiesced. The trial judge's question to the husband, 'why don't you get a job?,' demonstrated a failure to adhere to Florida's gender-neutral policy in custody determinations and revealed a bias against a non-breadwinner father. The children's best interests are served by placement with the available natural parent who is their primary caregiver.
Dissenting - Goderich, J.
Yes. The trial court abused its discretion by awarding custody to the parent working long hours as a senior litigation partner instead of the parent who had been a stay-at-home caretaker for three years. The mother acquiesced to this arrangement, which benefited both her career and the children. The trial court's questions about the father's unemployment and the need for a nanny were clear evidence of gender bias, as such questions would not be posed to a non-working mother whose husband earned over $300,000 per year.
Analysis:
This en banc decision strongly reinforces the deferential 'abuse of discretion' standard of review for child custody determinations in Florida, significantly limiting an appellate court's power to intervene. It establishes that a trial court can properly consider the entire history of the parenting relationship, not just the period immediately preceding litigation, in determining which parent has been the most stable and constant presence. The case highlights the judicial struggle with non-traditional gender roles in family law, illustrating the tension between honoring a recent stay-at-home-parent arrangement and valuing a parent's long-term history of stability and continuous involvement.
