S.C., APPELLANT,
v.
A.L.A. AND R.D., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order excusing a biological father's consent to adoption and denying his habeas corpus petition regarding custody. The court rejected the father's due process challenge and upheld the finding of abandonment under the deferential standard of review established in In re Adoption of Baby E.A.W.
The trial court's order excusing the father's consent to adoption and denying his habeas corpus petition must be affirmed. The father's due process rights were not violated because he knew of the adoption petition filing for five months and had filed an objection, and the hearing was scheduled with more than thirty days' notice. The evidence was sufficient to support a finding of abandonment under the applicable standard of review.
[1] A trial court does not violate due process by holding an emergency hearing to excuse a birth father's consent to adoption when the father had notice of the adoption petit…
[2] Appellate review of a trial court's finding of abandonment in an adoption proceeding is severely limited, requiring affirmance if any theory of law supports the judgment,…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the appellate court cannot reweigh the testimony and evidence, and must affirm the trial court's ruling if the record contains 'any theory or principle of law which would support the trial court's judgment in favor of terminating ... parental rights.'”
Establishes the deferential standard of appellate review for abandonment findings in adoption cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe biological father had legal custody of his child for approximately nine months, during which the father's relatives provided most of the child rea…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Adoption cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
We affirm the trial court’s order excusing the birth father’s consent to the adoption of his biological child and the court’s denial of his connected petition for writ of habeas corpus regarding the child’s custody.
Appellant claims that the trial court denied him due process in holding a hearing to excuse his consent on an emergency basis.
However, appellant knew of the filing of the petition for adoption for five months and had even filed an objection. In addition, the hearing on the petition to excuse his consent was scheduled with more than thirty days notice.
Thus, we do not deem this to be a violation of due process. Appellant also contends that the evidence was insufficient to show that he abandoned his child. The supreme court severely limited appellate review of such findings in In re Adoption of Baby E.A.W., 658 So. 2d 961, 966-67 (Fla.1995), cert. denied by G.W.B. v. J.S.W., 516 U.S. 1051, 116 S.Ct. 719, 138 L.Ed.2d 672 (1996).
While the trial court must find abandonment by clear and convincing evidence, on review, the appellate court cannot reweigh the testimony and evidence, and must affirm the trial court’s ruling if the record contains “ ‘any theory or principle of law which would support the trial court’s judgment in favor of terminating ... parental rights.’ ” Id. at 967 (quoting Kingsley v. Kingsley, 623 So. 2d 780, 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), rev. denied, 634 So. 2d 625 (Fla.1994)).
On this standard of review, the trial court’s ruling must be affirmed.
In this case, while the father had legal custody of the child for about nine months, the trial court found that the father’s relatives did most of the child rearing. In addition, the father has not provided any financial support since January 1997, when the child was returned to the mother. Nor has the appellant visited or communicated with the child. At some point after January 1997, the appellant was incarcerated for committing crimes during the time he exercised custody of his child. During his incarceration, he made only one early attempt to contact the mother and his child without success. He made no other efforts to find his child.
Thus, at the time he was first notified of the petition for adoption, he had not contacted his child for over sixteen months. These findings support the conclusion of the trial court, and pursuant to E.A.W., we are obliged to affirm.
We affirm as to all issues raised in both appeals.
DELL and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.S. v. S.A. & J.A., 912 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ng his paternity and that his actions fell short of showing a settled purpose to assume parental responsibilities for the child. We are not permitted to reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. See S.C. v. A.L.A., 736 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (affirming trial court’s finding of abandonment after applying standard of review which prohibits appellate court from reweighing testimony and evidence). Because the record sufficiently supports the court’s ruling, we affirm th…
-
J.C.J. v. Heart OF Adoptions, Inc., 989 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…ternity and child had been with adoptive parents for a significant period of time during which substantial bonding had occurred; father’s actions fell short of showing a settled purpose to assume parental responsibilities for child); S.C. v. A.L.A., 736 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding that father’s lack of financial support and minimal contact and communication with child supported trial court’s finding of abandonment). J.C.J. first learned about the child three weeks prior to its birth. Neither at t…
Authorities Cited
- In re the Adoption OF Baby E.A.W. G.W.B. v. J.S.W., 658 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1995)
- Kingsley v. Kingsley, 623 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Perez v. United States, 516 U.S. 1051 (U.S. 1996)
- G. W. B. v. J. S. W., 516 U.S. 1051 (U.S. 1996)