IN RE ADOPTION OF GLADYS INEZ SHEA, SOMETIMES KNOWN AS GLADYS INEZ PRIDGEN, A MINOR, BY ADAM D. SHEFTALL, JR., AND WIFE, BEATRICE H. SHEFTALL
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 Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of an adoption petition where the natural mother's consent was obtained by fraud or duress. The court held that absent valid consent, a child is not a proper subject for adoption proceedings, and the findings supporting return of custody to the natural parents were amply supported by the record.
The court held that the record contained competent substantial evidence that the consent was obtained by fraud, duress, or both. Because the consent was invalid, the child was not a proper subject for adoption proceedings. The court affirmed the dismissal of the adoption petition and the order returning custody to the natural parents.
“the welfare of the minor child sought to be adopted does not warrant depriving her natural parents of her custody”
The circuit court's finding supporting dismissal of the adoption petition and return of custody to natural parents
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Sheftalls obtained custody of a minor child through an award by a county probation officer and sheriff without county judge authorization, as requ…
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
HOBSON, Justice.
The situation which gave rise to these proceedings had its inception when custody' of a child was awarded by the county probation officer and the sheriff to persons who subsequently petitioned for adoption of the child, and who are appellants herein'. This award of custody was entirely without authority since it was accomplished without the sanction of the county judge, as required by Secs. 415.04 and 415.05, Florida Statutes 1949, F.S.A., then in effect.
A consent was executed by the mother of the child, and appellants filed their petition for adoption. Voluminous testimony was taken before’ a special examiner appointed by the circuit court. The adoption proceedings terminated in an order dismissing the petition. This order was based upon findings that “the welfare of the minor child sought to be adopted does not warrant depriving her natural parents of her custody” and that the natural parents “are fit and proper persons to have custody of the said minor child and are able to give her the care required.” It was ordered that the petitioners deliver custody of the child to its natural parents. The order of the circuit court was based upon the testimony reported by the special examiner, depositions filed in the cause, and recommendations of the State Welfare Board.
Appellants contend that the welfare of the child will best be served by the granting of the petition for adoption, that the mother is bound by the consent which she executed, and that there is not sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the mother’s contention that the consent was obtained by fraud. We have reviewed the record and find that it contains competent substantial evidence that the consent was obtained by fraud, duress, or both. Since we have made this determination, the case is controlled by Lambert v. Taylor, 150 Fla. 680, 8 So. 2d 393, and the child is therefore shown not to have been a proper subject for the adoption proceedings. Moreover, we find that the record amply supports the findings of the chancellor which we have stated above.
Affirmed.
DREW, C. J.,. THORNAL, J., and PATTERSON, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grabovetz v. Sachs, 262 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…reservation or objection. The consents were, therefore, freely and voluntarily given. In order to revoke a consent to an adoption it must be clearly shown that the consent was made under duress or undue influence. In Re Adoption of Shea, Fla.1956, 86 So. 2d 164. This case turns on the legal premises of whether or not appellant mother has sustained this burden of proof. In the absence of fraud or duress the natural mother of the child must be held to her legally executed consents. These documents should no…
-
Janine Preston v. Tolone, 661 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…. v. Evans, 547 So. 2d 626 (Fla.1989); Landers v. Milton, 370 So. 2d 368 (Fla.1979); Eagle National Bank of Miami v. Burks, 502 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Don Mar, Inc. v. Cillis, 483 So .2d 870 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). . See In re Adoption of Shea, 86 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1956); Lambert v. Taylor, 8 So. 2d 393 (Fla.1942). . See State ex rel. Warren v. City of Miami, 15 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1943); Andy v. Lessem, 595 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Groover v. Groover, 383 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); In re Kant's…
Authorities Cited
- Lambert v. Taylor, 150 Fla. 680 (Fla. 1942)