Marriage of Herrell v. Herrell
“Necessary” standard applies to decision to terminate joint custody. On remand, court should treat case as filed under new law.
Luhman v. Luhman
Stipulation is sufficient for change in custody – no hearing or findings of fact are necessary.
In re Paternity of S.A.
FCC may intervene in post-judgment custody modification stipulation.
In re Paternity of S.R.N.
Since modification was within two years of initial order, trial court erred by focusing on best interests of child instead of necessary-to-modify standard.
In Re Marriage of Licary v. Licary
Modification after 2 years requires proof of substantial change of circumstances. New joint custody law is not a change in circumstances.
In Re Marriage of Wiederholt v. Fischer
(1) No abuse of discretion for refusing to transfer placement to father due to “parental alienation syndrome” (2) No abuse of discretion for revising placement with rigid schedule – any harm to children due to less time with father is outweighed by stability.
In re Paternity of Stephanie R.N.
Modification within 2 yrs. requires proof on necessity, that custodial conditions are harmful and physical or emotional harm is severe enough to warrant modification.
In re Paternity of Bradford J.B.
Court cannot substantially modify placement within two years unless it finds harmful conditions.
In Re Marriage of Scott H. v. Kathleen M.H.
Trial court could modify placement on petition for child abuse injunction. Separate motion under 767.325 not necessary.
In Re Marriage of Hughes v. Hughes
Trial court properly applied ยง767.325 where mother brought removal action and father countered with motion to change placement.