From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In Interest of C.M. F.M

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jun 17, 1992
601 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Opinion

No. 92-0339.

June 17, 1992.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, St. Lucie County, Paul B. Kanarek, J.

Osborne Walker O'Quinn of Law Offices of Osborne Walker O'Quinn, Fort Pierce, for appellant A.E.

No appearance required for appellee.


Appellant, the aunt of the children who are the subject of this appeal, filed a Petition for Primary Physical Residence (emphasis supplied) in the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida, seeking primary residential custody of her niece and nephew, ages seven and nine, respectively. The trial court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the aunt, as a non-parent, lacked standing to petition the court for residential custody of the children. We affirm.

Appellant argues that because the parents, who both reside out of state, consent to her petition, the law on which the trial court relied is inapplicable. We disagree. Standing or lack thereof in this proceeding is not dependent on whether the parents consent to the children's living with the aunt, nor does it depend on whether the fitness of either or both of the parents is challenged. There is no authority, statutory or otherwise, which permits a nonparent to petition for primary residential custody of a child unless it is brought through a Chapter 39 dependency proceeding. See Schilling v. Wood, 532 So.2d 12 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).

AFFIRMED.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and HERSEY and POLEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In Interest of C.M. F.M

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jun 17, 1992
601 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
Case details for

In Interest of C.M. F.M

Case Details

Full title:IN THE INTEREST OF C.M. AND F.M., MINOR CHILDREN

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Jun 17, 1992

Citations

601 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Citing Cases

Kazmierazak v. Query

Moreover, she does not contend that a psychological parent has any rights recognized at common law.…