Ragle v. Ragle
82 So. 3d 109
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Divorced in 2008 with shared parental responsibility; Appellant had primary custody in Clay County.
- Appellant moved to St. Johns County in early 2009 to enroll the oldest child in a new school, roughly 28 miles away.
- Appellee filed contempt motions but did not seek to block the move.
- Appellee amended to modify custody, alleging substantial changes and deterioration of cooperation, plus concerns about the move.
- Trial court entered a new custody/time-sharing order adopting Bloomfield’s evaluation, finding the move harmful and not in the children’s best interests, without explicit factual findings.
- Record included no trial transcript; court approved a 36-page Statement of Proceeding substituted for a transcript; appellate review focused on two-prong modification standard under Florida law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the custody modification was an abuse of discretion | Ragle: no substantial change; relocation alone insufficient | Ragle: relocation and resulting strain justify modification | Modification reversed; not supported by substantial change. |
| Whether relocation 28 miles constitutes a substantial change in circumstances | Ragle: relocation alone is insufficient | Ragle: relocation contributed to instability affecting welfare | Relocation alone not substantial change; insufficient for modification. |
| Whether the two‑prong test for custodial modification was properly applied | Ragle: court failed to require extraordinary burden | Ragle: the evidence supported modification under the test | Court abused discretion by not applying the extraordinary burden test. |
| Whether reliance on the guardian ad litem/custody evaluator required explicit findings | Ragle: findings were absent or vague about substantial change | Ragle: evaluator’s findings supported change | Order lacked specificity; remand required for explicit findings. |
| Whether imputing minimum wage to Appellee and contempt denial were proper | Ragle: those rulings were proper | Ragle: no challenge to those aspects | Affirmed regarding imputations and contempt denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Boykin, 843 So.2d 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (two-prong test for modification; extraordinary burden to show substantial change and best interests)
- Jablon v. Jablon, 579 So.2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (modification standard is stricter than initial custody)
- Ogilvie v. Ogilvie, 954 So.2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (relocation alone not substantial change; need more)
- Segarra v. Segarra, 947 So.2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) ( relocation alone not substantial change)
- Sotomayor v. Sotomayor, 891 So.2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (absence of substantial change from hostility/custody issues)
- Straney v. Floethe, 58 So.3d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (requires express findings on substantial change in custody)
- Young v. Young, 732 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (custody modification involves welfare, not merely parental convenience)
- Gibbs v. Gibbs, 686 So.2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (modification requires significant inadequacy in care)
- Hastings, 875 So.2d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (affirmative abuse of discretion if extraordinary burden not applied)