HomeMy WebLinkAbout2261 ~
CENTER V. CENTER ~
1
. ~
~
~
The matter is controled by Rule 1, 420 (e) Flcrida Rules of Civil Provedure ~
- which provides as follows:
z
"(e) Failure to Prosecute. All actions in which it affirmatively ,
appears that no action has been taken by filing of pleadings, ~
order of Court or otherwise for a period of one year shall. be `
dismissed by the Court on its own motion or on motion by any i
interested person, whether a party to the action or not, after
reasonable notice to the parties, unless a party shows good `
cause in writing why the action should remain pending at least :
five days before the hearing on the motion. "
In her affidavit, the Wife states that on or about March 19, 1973,
she learned that one of the minor children of parties was using drugs. ~
This child was enrolled in a drug rehabilitation program in Broward `
~
~
County. While the child ~vas enrolled in the program, for approximately ~
thr~e rno~ths, she travelled from rort Pierce to Fort Lauderdale at least
two times each week. . A second child of the parties was enrolled in the
drug rehabilitation program on July 8, 1973. The wife alleges that during the
time both children were involved in the drug rehabilitation program, she
devoted her entire attention to the rehabilitation of the children and her
attendance at the meetings and extensive travel occupied almost all of her
time and energies. She states that her sole concern was that her children
not return to the use of drugs and that this concern necessitated her full
f
; physical and emotional attention towards this end and that she did not intend
to delay the prosecution of her petition for any reason except for her concern
for the welfare of her children.
The Husband, in his affidavit, points out that both parents were going
to Fort Lauderdale during the initial intensive portion of the drug rehabilitation
program. However, on July 15, 1973, a drug rehabilitation center was opened
in Fort Pierce and thereafter the children were transferred to the program in
Fort Pierce. Their son was unconditionally released from the program in August
~ 1973, as was their daughter in November, 1973.
The issue then is whether the wife has shown good cause why the ,
husband's motion to dismiss for want of prosecution should not be granted.
;
l
-2-
E ~ i~ 1 PAGE
s.
- - . _ „ ,
. _ :
~ ~ ~ ; i
~Y ~
_~:?~-~a r