IN THE INTEREST OF G. S., A. S., AND R. S., THREE CHILDREN, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
This case addresses whether a juvenile court must make specific factual findings when permanently committing children to a child placing agency for adoption. The court reversed the permanent commitment order because the juvenile judge failed to recite the factual findings required by statute.
Yes. The statute requires the juvenile court to make specific factual findings addressing the statutory grounds for permanent commitment (abandonment, neglect, or parental unfitness) and a finding that permanent commitment is manifestly in the child's best interest. A permanent commitment order that contains only conclusory statements without specific factual findings fails to meet the essential requirements of law and cannot stand.
“To deprive one permanently of his offspring is a highly drastic action, and a valid order changing a temporary commitment of a dependent child to a permanent commitment, must be in strict conformance with legislative direction.”
Establishes the high standard required for permanent removal of children and the necessity of strict statutory compliance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThree minor children were the subject of a petition for permanent commitment to a licensed child placing agency. The juvenile court entered an order p…
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 Parens Patriae cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order of the juvenile court permanently committing three minor children to a licensed child placing agency. The question raised is, does Chapter 39.11(1) (d) Florida Statutes, F.S.A., require the juvenile judge to make and recite in his order specific findings of facts as a prerequisite for permanently removing children from their parents and placing them with a licensed child placing agency for adoption.
No record was made of the evidence or testimony presented to the juvenile judge. We are not reviewing the sufficiency of the facts of whether the judge misinterpreted the legal effect thereof. Our scope of review is limited to answering the question raised above.
The order appealed, which permanently committed the children to a licensed child placing agency, recites no findings of facts. The only finding is: “ * * * and the Court being of the opinion that the best interests of said children require the Court to grant said petition. * * * ”
We test this order by Chapter 39.11(1) (d), which provides:
“Permanently commit * * * (the child), if the juvenile court finds that the child has been abandoned by the natural parent or parents, and legal guardian if any, of the child; or that the parent or parents, and legal guardian if any, have substantially and continuously or repeatedly refused, or though financially able have neglected, to give the child parental care and protection; or that the parent or parents, and legal guardian if any, are unfit by reason of their conduct or condition, which is seriously detrimental to the child’s welfare; and if the court finds that it is manifestly to the best interest of the child to do so.”
The state, in its capacity of parens patriae, may direct the conditions or exigencies by which it can assume control of infants. These conditions, however, can be set by the legislature only. To deprive one permanently of his offspring is a highly drastic action, and a valid order changing a temporary commitment of a dependent child to a permanent commitment, must be in strict conformance with legislative direction. Noeling v. State, Fla.1956, 87 So.2d 593.
The courts must follow the positive and unambiguous provisions of the statute. So-called findings of facts that are mere conclusions will not support a judgment permanently severing parental rights. See, a similar case, Mitchell v. State, Fla.App. 1962, 142 So.2d 740, containing extensive factual findings.
We are forced to conclude that the order appealed, which permanently committed said children to a licensed child placing agency for adoption, shows on its face that it fails to meet the essential requirements of law and that it is not in strict conformity with legislative direction. The order appealed is therefore reversed.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of Smith v. Fla. State Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 299 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…njoy their children, the courts should zealously protect the rights of the natural parents and insure that this drastic action strictly conforms to legislative guidelines. Kersey v. State, Fla.App.1960, 124 So. 2d 726; G. S. v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 190 So. 2d 603. We have carefully scrutinized the evidence presented in this case, and have concluded that the evidence, taken as a whole, demonstrates that the court misinterpreted the legal effect thereof. When Mrs. Smith’s children were discovered wandering i…
Authorities Cited
- Noeling v. State, 87 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1956)
- Mitchell v. State, 142 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)