IN RE THE ADOPTION OF LEONARD DAVID COLEMAN
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.
Florida appellate court reversed summary denial of adoption petition and remanded for hearing on merits, holding that grandparents seeking to adopt their grandson are entitled to a hearing and decision on the merits rather than summary dismissal based on financial eligibility assumptions.
Grandparents seeking to adopt their grandson are entitled to a hearing on their adoption petition and a decision on the merits, and cannot be summarily denied without evidence and testimony.
[1] An adoption petition cannot be summarily denied without a hearing and consideration of evidence; petitioners are entitled to a hearing on the merits and a decision based…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlbert Coleman and Ossie Lee Coleman petitioned to adopt their grandson, who had lived with them since birth. The trial court summarily denied the pet…
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
ANSTEAD, Judge.
The only point raised on appeal is the right of the appellants, Albert Coleman and Ossie Lee Coleman, to have a hearing on their petition to adopt their grandson who has lived with them since birth. The trial court refused the petitioners a hearing and summarily denied the petition. Notwithstanding any testimony being taken or evidence received, the trial court concluded:
The petitioners are prima facie ineligible to adopt a child under these facts. If they want custody of the child (which they have) they should look to the parents for support.
This Court will not be a party to a scheme whereby a citizen is allowed to use the Courts for free, be provided a lawyer for free and have the Government of the United States support a child for free, as long as his mother and father are able to provide such support. To do so would prostitute the laws of Florida and add an unnecessary burden to the taxpayers of this country.
Since there was no hearing, this court is not in a position to evaluate these conclusions. However, the petitioners are entitled to a hearing on their petition and a decision on the merits. See McMillan v. Findley, 135 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
MAGER, J., concurs.
CROSS, J., dissents, with opinion.
CROSS, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
The record is insufficient for lack of a transcript to determine whether the trial court refused petitioners a hearing and summarily denied their petition for adoption. It is the responsibility and duty of an appellant to provide the reviewing court with a record sufficient to review matters assigned as error. Johnson v. Town of Eatonville, 203 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). In the instant case, the appellant has failed to provide a sufficient record. Accordingly, I would affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Outlaw v. Douglas, 378 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…d guidelines, and is not within the purview of the trial court. We feel compelled to note that this is not the first occasion we have had to rule on a [*893] similar matter from the same division of the circuit court. See In re Adoption of Coleman, 349 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Access to the courts cannot be denied because of personal predilections. We trust that this order will suffice to clarify any misconceptions under which the trial judge may have been laboring. The petition is granted, as is our…
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. Town OF Eatonville, 203 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- McMILLAN v. Findley, 135 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)