Crombie v. Williams
51 So. 3d 559
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2010Background
- In 2006, a final judgment designated Crombie as primary residential parent of NIW and restricted relocation without consent or court order.
- Crombie later lost her job and moved with NIW to Jacksonville, filing a notice of intent to relocate on September 22, 2007.
- Williams sought NIW's return, resulting in Crombie being held in contempt for violating the relocation clause.
- Crombie petitioned to relocate and Williams sought redetermination of time-sharing and custody changes; the trial court denied relocation and granted Williams more time with NIW.
- On appeal, the district court affirmed the denial of relocation, noted no custody modification, and remanded to resolve an expedited child-support determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was relocation to Jacksonville properly denied? | Crombie contends relocation is in NIW's best interests. | Williams argues relocation harms NIW's stability and access. | No abuse of discretion; relocation denied. |
| Should there be an expedited decision on child support on remand? | Crombie seeks timely resolution of child support aligned with relocation issues. | Williams contends child support can be addressed separately. | Remand for expedited child-support determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Muller v. Muller, 964 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (relocation reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Fredman v. Fredman, 917 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (stresses section 61.13(2)(d) factors for relocation)
- Buonavolonta v. Buonavolonta, 846 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (relocation analysis in dissolution context)
- Hardwick v. Hardwick, 710 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (relocation requires consideration of 61.13(2)(d))
- Miller v. Schou, 616 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1993) (expedited child support as a principle)