Florida recognizes claim for intentional interference with parent-child relationship.

The Supreme Court of Florida recently ruled that a man could sue his child's aunt and grandmother for allegedly abducting the child.

Addressing a question of first impression, the court held that a custodial parent can recover damages from a nonparent third party who intentionally interferes with the parent's right to raise the child. (Stone v. Wall, No. 92,499 (Fla. June 17, 1999).)

With the decision, Florida joins the majority of states that have recognized a cause of action for tortious interference with the parent-child relationship.

Writing for the court's 4-1 majority, Justice Barbara Joan Pariente traced the origins of the tort to early English law, which gave fathers a property interest in their heirs. If an heir was abducted, the father could sue for loss of services.

That "outdated" view of children has "been replaced with a more enlightened and realistic view of the role of children in their parents' lives," Pariente said. "The cause of action for interference with a custodial parent-child relationship is a natural progression of the common law with due regard for constitutional principles, changes in our social and economic customs, and present day conceptions of right and justice."

According to the complaint, plaintiff Walter Stone shared custody of his minor child--identified in the lawsuit only as S.P.S.--with the child's mother, Gwen Lindgren. While the child was staying with Stone in Mississippi, he learned that Lindgren had brain cancer and had less than six months to live.

At Lindgren's request, Stone agreed to let S.P.S. return to Lindgren's home in Virginia until she died. Lindgren's mother, Georgeanne Wall, then asked Stone whether he intended to take the child back to Mississippi after Lindgren died. Stone told her he did.

Stone alleges that Wall and Lindgren's sister, Gina Wall Masterson, along with their attorney, conspired in Florida to abduct S.P.S., took the child to Colorado before Lindgren died, refused to tell Stone where his child was, and executed a guardianship agreement without his knowledge. Stone eventually located S.P.S. and picked her up after school one day, said his lawyer, Nathan Clark, of Pinecrest, Florida.

A federal district court dismissed Stone's suit against Wall, Masterson, and their attorney, finding, among other things, that the matter warranted the court's abstention because it involved family law issues.

But the Eleventh Circuit reversed, finding that abstention was not necessary because the plaintiff was seeking monetary recovery for an alleged tort. Finding that Florida law applied, the federal appellate court asked that state's high court to determine whether the plaintiff's claim was viable in that jurisdiction.

In a dissenting opinion, Senior Justice Ben Overton said the majority's decision would likely do more harm than good, especially to children.

"There are no winners as a result of the majority decision except the beneficiaries of the fees generated by these proceedings," Overton wrote. "In my view, the children in these types of proceedings are very likely to be even more the losers than they are now."

Plaintiff lawyer Clark said that concern for the welfare of children caught in the middle of custody disputes is the main reason some courts have decided not to allow parents to sue other parents in civil court. The concern "is that it may harm the children to have one parent say bad things about the other parent in court," Clark said.

Clark said this reasoning is flawed because children in custody disputes have most likely already been exposed to hurtful language by the time the parties get to court. "At that point, [the parents] are already saying bad things about each other and there are problems," Clark said. "I'm sure it's not easy on the kids, but it's just more water under the bridge."

Clark said he knew of no decision denying a parent a right to sue a nonparent. "The only objection in these cases is that family disputes should not be brought into civil court but should be removed to family court," Clark said.

Overton raised this objection in his dissent as well. "My view is that the remedy should be in one family court. Multiple suits regarding intrafamily disputes in multiple courts do nothing but reduce substantially the family resources that could be available for the support and education of the children who are involved," Overton wrote.

But Clark said family court offers no recourse to a custodial parent whose child has been taken. "In family court, before you remove a child, you are supposed to file an action with the court," Clark said. The dispute is supposed to be settled before the child is moved.

But the people who simply take a child away from a custodial parent are "circumventing the whole process. Family court doesn't work," Clark said.

The case is now again in federal district court in the early stages of discovery, Clark said. Stone is seeking more than $75,000 in damages for loss of companionship, mental distress, and legal and investigative fees.