Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Custody
What is intentional interference with custody rights in Florida? This is a cause of action for which a third party can be sued for interfering with a parent’s custodial rights of a child. To prove a claim for this cause of action, a parent must show: “(1) the complaining parent has a right to establish or maintain a parental or custodial relationship with his/her minor child; (2) a party outside of the relationship between the complaining parent and his/her child intentionally interfered with the complaining parent’s parental or custodial relationship with his/her child by removing or detaining the child from returning to the complaining parent, without that parent’s consent, or by otherwise preventing the complaining parent from exercising his/her parental or custodial rights; (3) the outside party’s intentional interference caused harm to the complaining parent’s parental or custodial relationship with his/her child; and (4) damages resulted from such interference.” Glegg v. Van Den Hurk, 4D2023-0026 (Fla. 4th DCA January 10, 2024).
A teenage girl was the subject of this case. The girl’s father resided in Canada, and filed a lawsuit against the girl’s mother and stepfather who resided in Florida. The lawsuit alleged intentional interference with custody rights and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Specifically against the stepfather, the father alleged that he conspired with the mother to interfere with his custody rights by providing housing for the girl, taking her to school in Florida, buying school supplies for the girl, and failing to prevent the girl from being enrolled in school in Florida. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the mother and the stepfather, and the father appealed.
The appellate court first noted that “Florida recognizes a cause of action for the tortious interference of a parent’s custodial rights but only in the context of a parent suing a third-party for such interference [. . .] family courts have ‘remedial tools’ that civil courts do not have that can address custody issues between parents ‘before it festers into a problem beyond control.’ [internal citation omitted]. [W]e hold that such tort claims by one parent against another should be brought in the family courts, not the civil courts.”
Acknowledging that the father was entitled to bring a claim against the stepfather, the court affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment in favor of the stepfather on the custody interference claim, holding “We agree with the trial court that the record was devoid of any evidence supporting the Father’s claim on the custodial interference count against the Stepfather. The Stepfather was not involved in the relationship between the daughter and her parents and he left all decisions relating to custody and the daughter’s residence to her parents. The Stepfather’s alleged conduct, including providing housing and transportation for the daughter or failing to intervene in the Mother’s relationship with the daughter, simply does not constitute intentional interference with the Father’s parental or custodial relationship with the daughter. As explained in Stone, the custodial interference tort typically requires more tortious conduct than the Stepfather is alleged to have committed here.”
Turning to the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, the court noted the following which must be proven by the plaintiff to obtain relief: “(1) the wrongdoer’s conduct was intentional or reckless, that is, he intended his behavior when he knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely result; (2) the conduct was outrageous, that is, as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the conduct caused emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe.” The court concluded “The question of whether conduct is sufficiently outrageous enough to support an IIED claim is a question of law, not a question of fact. Baker v. Fla. Nat’l Bank, 559 So. 2d 284, 287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). While the Father wildly exaggerates when describing the Stepfather’s conduct as a conspiracy to ‘kidnapping,’ courts do not focus on the alleged victim’s subjective response to, or description of, the actor’s conduct. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Based on a review of the record, the Stepfather’s actions and inactions are nowhere near the level of ‘outrageous’ conduct necessary to establish an IIED claim under Florida law.”
Schedule your consultation with a Miami child custody lawyer to understand how the law may apply to your case.