## Facts

- Willard (Craig) Keesee and Karen Keesee divorced after a marriage that produced two children: a six-year-old daughter and a two-year-old son.
- Karen was a stay-at-home parent and the children’s primary caretaker, closely involved in daily routines, schooling, and activities, and she worked to improve her parenting skills.
- Craig worked long hours outside the home and was less involved in the children’s activities and caregiving.
- As the marriage deteriorated, Craig became emotionally and physically abusive toward Karen, and the couple often argued about finances.
- During a Christmas-time argument about finances, Karen recorded an incident in which Craig threatened to smash her face, grabbed a camcorder, struck her in the head with it, and damaged the video function; the audio continued recording, capturing the children screaming in fear.
- After the incident, Craig left the home for several days without telling the family where he went.
- In the dissolution proceeding, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on custody and heard from numerous witnesses, including friends, teachers, the parties, a guardian ad litem, and a court-appointed psychologist, Dr. Fleishman.
- Dr. Fleishman conducted a custody evaluation, reviewed the recorded Christmas incident, described it as an “appalling display” of Craig’s disregard for the children’s needs, found Karen more candid and better able to meet the children’s needs, and characterized Craig as essentially dishonest and possibly a pathological liar.
- The guardian ad litem recommended that Karen be the primary residential parent.
- The trial court awarded Karen primary residential custody and set a visitation schedule for Craig.
- Craig appealed, challenging the custody award, the trial court’s receipt and use of the psychologist’s evaluation (including alleged bias based on contacts with Karen’s treating therapist), and the visitation schedule as not sufficiently liberal.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Karen primary residential custody, including by admitting and relying on the court-appointed psychologist’s evaluation and testimony despite Craig’s claimed conflict or bias.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by setting a visitation schedule that Craig claimed was not sufficiently liberal.

## Decision

- The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment in all respects.
- The court held Craig failed to meet the heavy burden required to overturn an initial custody determination supported by competent, substantial evidence.
- The court rejected Craig’s challenge to the court-appointed psychologist, concluding the trial court did not reversibly err by considering the psychologist’s evaluation and related contacts made as part of the custody investigation.
- The court affirmed the visitation provisions as within the trial court’s discretion based on the case’s facts.

## Legal Principles

- An initial child-custody determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion; the party attacking the trial court’s decision carries a heavy burden.
- When testimony conflicts, the trial court resolves factual disputes and determines witness credibility; an appellate court will not reweigh evidence or reconsider credibility choices if competent, substantial evidence supports the ruling.
- A trial court has discretion to receive and rely on a court-appointed psychologist’s custody evaluation; consultation with treating therapists as part of the evaluation does not, by itself, require disqualification or exclusion.
- Visitation schedules are committed to the trial court’s discretion and will be affirmed absent a clear showing that the schedule is unreasonable or unsupported by the record.

## Conclusion

Keesee affirms a final judgment awarding the mother primary residential custody and setting visitation, holding that the father did not show an abuse of discretion where the record contained competent, substantial evidence—through lay testimony, a guardian ad litem, and a court-appointed psychologist—supporting the trial court’s best-interests findings, and where the alleged bias claim against the psychologist (based on evaluation-related contacts) did not warrant disqualification or reversal.


Keesee v. Keesee, 675 So. 2d 655 (1996)