Jones v. Allen, 72--306
| Decision Date | 18 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--306,72--306 |
| Parties | Donald JONES, natural father, et al., Appellants, v. Otis W. ALLEN and his wife, Edith D. Allen, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Britt Whitaker, Tampa, for appellants.
R. Philip Haddock, Lakeland, for appellees.
The maternal grandparents petitioned on August 10, 1971 to adopt their grandchild soon after the death of the mother. The child's parents had been divorced. The father was incarcerated at the time of the petition in the Florida State Penitentiary at Raiford. He was paroled on December 14, 1971. A condition of his parole, however, was that he was not to return to Polk County during his lifetime. Both the father and the paternal grandparents responded to the petition for adoption.
The adoption hearing was held in Polk County on March 2, 1972, after notice to the respondents. The father had apparently waited until too lake to obtain permission to enter Polk County and be present at the hearing. However, his attorney, along with the paternal grandparents, appeared and opposed the petition as well as could be expected in view of the facts in the record. The circuit judge entered a final adoption order granting the petition of the maternal grandparents and also granting visitation rights in both the father and the paternal grandparents. The court's findings were that petitioners were
'suitable, fit and proper persons to adopt said child and that it is to the best interests and welfare of said child that they be permitted to adopt her and that said child is a suitable child for adoption . . ..'
The respondent father and paternal grandparents have appealed requesting another hearing wherein the father could be present and asserting that his inability to attend the hearing in March, 1972, constitutes a denial of due process. This proposition is not persuasive in view of the fact that two of the respondents were present and all the respondents were represented by counsel. It also appears that the father's presence would have added nothing to the proceeding nor that he was prejudiced in any substantial way. Certainly there was ample time in any event for him to have gotten permission to appear. The hearing was held some seven months from the date of the petition and nearly three months from the date of his parole. His failure to appear can only be described as being his own fault.
Appellants' second point relates to the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the adoption was granted. Although many states require a showing of a complete and total abandonment of a child by a natural parent for strangers to prevail over such parent in an adoption proceeding, Florida does not require such a stringent showing. See, 35 A.L.R.2d 662; In re Adoption by Cooper, 242 So.2d 196 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1970); In re Adoption of Vincent, 219 So.2d 454 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1969); In re Miller, 227 So.2d 73 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1969). The foregoing citations plainly indicate that if strangers to the child can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interests of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harper v. Caskin
...In re Neusche, 398 S.W.2d 453 (Mo.App.1965). The matter has been put in appropriate perspective in Florida, where in Jones v. Allen, 277 So.2d 599 (Fla.App.1973), the court We hasten to add, however, that the mere fact that strangers might make better parents or that they might be in a bett......
-
Adoption of Baby E.A.W., In re
...abandonment of the child. La Follette v. Van Weeldon [sic], 309 So.2d 197 (Fla.D.C.A. 1st 1975). We decline to follow Jones v. Allen, 277 So.2d 599 (Fla.D.C.A. 2nd 1973). That case held that something less than complete and total abandonment by natural parents was sufficient to permit adopt......
-
Adoption of Cottrill, Matter of
...consent.4 In light of the Second District's decision in Solomon v. McLucas, Cottrill can no longer take comfort in Jones v. Allen, 277 So.2d 599 (Fla.2d DCA 1973), in which the court said that a showing of abandonment was not required where there is clear and convincing evidence that adopti......
-
Davis v. Dixon, 89-292
...terminates upon a judgment of adoption becoming final. See Calderon v. Torres, 445 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Jones v. Allen, 277 So.2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Lee v. Kepler, 197 So.2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). Thus without some legislative exemption, a grandparent has no legal right of ......