Morrison v. Smith, 70--951
| Decision Date | 14 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 70--951,70--951 |
| Citation | 257 So.2d 623 |
| Parties | Grady B. MORRISON and Edna E. Morrison, his wife, Appellants, v. Angie SMITH and State of Florida Division of Family Services, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Sam E. Murrell, of Sam E. Murrell & Sons, Orando, for appellants.
Gerald S. James, Fort Pierce, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a final order denying appellants' petition for adoption. The lower court found that it was not in the best interest of the minor child to grant the adoption petition.
The disposition of this cause would not be furthered by a protracted discussion of the facts and evidence in the record. In this connection the observations in Smith v. Lyst, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 921, at 923, are relevant:
The paramount consideration in any proceeding of this type is the best interest and welfare of the minor child. From our examination of the record we are of the opinion that there was sufficient competent evidence before the chancellor to support his finding that it would Not be in the best interest of the minor child to grant appellants' petition for adoption. The record poignantly reveals the full extent of the trial court's deep concern for the best interest of the child and the gravity and seriousness of its determination. As the court so eloquently pointed out:
'Everyone here, I am certain, is well-aware of the fact that we are dealing with a most delicate relationship and with a most delicate problem, the best interests and best welfare of the child, . . .'
'This is with anything other than pleasure, and only because from the evidence and from a consideration of the evidence as a whole, that the court is forced to announce that the Court will enter an order denying the petition. . . .'
In passing, it might be well to observe that while the Division of Family Services, appellee, in its investigative report which was part of the record below, did not contest the adoption, leaving such matter for the determination of the trial court, the conclusion is inescapable from a reading of the report as well as a review of the testimony as a whole that the Division Could not recommend approval of appellants' petition. As the Division's report and the testimony reflect 'the Division believes and continues to believe, that the placement' (with appellants) 'is Not in the best interest of the child'.
It is not the function of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of a chancellor who heard the evidence unless it has been made to appear that the findings are Clearly erroneous when considering all the evidence. Town of Medley v. Seminole Rock Products, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 534. The test is not what the appellate court would have decided had they heard the original testimony but only whether there was sufficient evidence in the record to justify the lower court's determination. R. H. James, Inc. v. Anderson, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 829; Old Equity Life Ins. Co. v. Levenson, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 50. 1
The appellants have not carried the burden of demonstrating that the findings of the trial court are not supported by the record. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is affirmed.
Appellants-petitioners, Grady B. Morrison and Edna E. Morrison, his wife, appeal an order denying their petition for adoption of a certain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gergora v. Flynn
...abuse of discretion. Manufacturers National Bank v. Canmont International, Inc., 322 So.2d 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Morrison v. Smith, 257 So.2d 623, 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). After reviewing the record, we find that substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings that material breac......
-
Ostreyko v. B. C. Morton Organization, Inc., 74-895
...of the trial court which resolve conflicting evidence unless the court's determinations are clearly erroneous. E. g., Morrison v. Smith, Fla.App.1972, 257 So.2d 623; Mart v. Leibman, Fla.App.1973, 281 So.2d The record before us reveals testimony by the plaintiff, Mrs. Hamel (Ostreyko), that......
-
D. A. H., In Interest of, s. 79-122
...the evidence, but whether or not there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court's determination. Morrison v. Smith, 257 So.2d 623 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). I would 1 § 39.11(2), Fla.Stat. (1977):When any child shall be adjudicated by a court to be a dependent child, the cour......
-
Dory Auerbach Realty Co. v. Waser
...the findings of the trial judge and, therefore, we cannot and shall not reverse the judgment of the trial court. See Morrison v. Smith, 257 So.2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); City of Miami Beach v. Fein, 263 So.2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Jackson v. Granger Lumber Company, Inc., 275 So.2d 555 (F......