Meixner v. Meixner
Docket: 3D01-607
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; April 25, 2001; Florida; State Appellate Court
Karen Meixner appeals a post-dissolution order transferring primary residential custody of her daughter to Ronald Meixner. The original final judgment of dissolution granted Karen primary custody, with Ronald having visitation rights. After Karen moved with their daughter to London, Ronald filed a motion alleging her refusal to allow visitation and sought enforcement of the visitation schedule, not custody change. Karen, served in London, did not attend the hearing where the trial court found her in willful violation of the judgment and issued an order to show cause for contempt, suggesting a possible custody change. Karen's attorney proposed her testimony by phone, which the court rejected. The court ultimately awarded custody to Ronald and ordered the child returned, implying this might compel Karen's return to Florida. The appellate court raises questions about the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction, emphasizing that jurisdiction must be expressly maintained or it can be lost if all parties move from Florida. The father's residency is unclear, as he previously claimed to be a resident of Germany, while Karen's attorney asserted that he resides there. This situation complicates the jurisdictional analysis under the UCCJA and the PKPA. Neither party is a U.S. citizen, and the child has not been in the United States since the dissolution of marriage. The Florida courts have no jurisdiction to protect the interests of a foreign child not located within the state. If the father resides outside Florida, the trial court lacks jurisdiction, but due to insufficient evidence, this conclusion is not definitive. Should further proceedings occur, the trial court must first ascertain its continuing jurisdiction, emphasizing that jurisdiction should not be manipulated based on convenience for enforcement of judgments. Assuming jurisdiction exists, the order on appeal is invalid; mere frustration of visitation is not grounds for changing custody, as established in case law. Custody changes cannot be used to enforce compliance with other court orders, and the trial court's disapproval of the mother’s absence at the hearing cannot justify a custody change. The welfare of the children must take precedence over the trial court’s authority concerns. The custody change order is also invalid for lacking findings of a substantial change in circumstances and that such a change serves the child's best interests; the burden is on the parent seeking modification to demonstrate these requirements. The custody change was reversed, and the father did not formally petition for a custody change during the proceedings.