Pendarvis v. State, A-216
| Decision Date | 03 July 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. A-216,A-216 |
| Parties | William T. PENDARVIS and Shelia Pendarvis, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Schwartz, Proctor & Bolinger, Jacksonville, for appellants.
Nathan Schevitz, Asst. State Atty., Jacksonville, for appellee.
Appellants are the parents of a minor, identified as W. T. P., Jr., who on December 7, 1955 was adjudged by the Juvenile Court of Duval County (Juvenile Court Case No. 19308) to be dependent and his custody awarded to his paternal uncle and aunt, hereinafter called the custodians.
On September 18, 1957 appellants filed a petition in the Juvenile Court in substance alleging that the legal custodians had failed to proeprly care for the child, that he remained dependent, and that they were fit, able, and willing to assume their parental obligations to him, and praying to have his care, custody and control awarded to them.
The trial judge heard testimony and on October 31, 1957 entered an order containing findings to the effect that the legal custodians had taken good care of the child and that his best interests would be served by continuing him in their care, custody, and control 'for the present,' and it was so ordered. This appeal is taken to review that order.
The question of law presented may be stated thus: Where a child has been lawfully adjudged to be a dependent or delinquent child and his care and custody awarded to persons other than his natural parents, is it incumbent on the court to forthwith transfer his care and custody to his parents upon their application, assuming they make a showing of fitness, ability, and willingness to perform their parental obligations? The word 'forthwith' is emphasized because the order appealed contains language clearly indicating that the retention of the child's custody in the present custodians is in no sense intended to be irrevocable. On the contrary, the finding that such custody should be continued in them 'for the present' opens the door of the court for appellants to apply in due season for an order modifying or setting aside the original order.
Appellants insist that the evidence before the trial judge demonstrated that they are presently qualified to have the care and custody of their child, and that general proposition appears to be correct. They contend, therefore, that the Juvenile Court had no alternative other than to commit the child to their care and custody.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Page
...to support the court's refusal to restore custody to the parent once the child had become a ward of the state." Pendarvis v. State, 104 So.2d 651, 652 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1958). Evidence may be admitted at disposition hearings which would be inadmissible at an adjudicatory hearing. Fla.Stat. §......
-
Davis v. Page
...becomes a ward of the courts, and the rights of the parent are permanently "forfeited" to the courts of Florida. Pendarvis v. State, 104 So.2d 651, 652 (Fla.1958) (Pendarvis I ). Once the court obtains jurisdiction of a dependent child, the jurisdiction continues unabated, unless relinquish......
-
Davis v. Page, 78-2063
...a finding of dependency nevertheless may be adequate to sustain denial of a petition for restoration of custody. In Pendarvis v. State, 104 So.2d 651 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1958), the Florida court refused to restore a child to the custody of its parents, Once a child has been lawfully declared t......
-
Davis v. Page
...Sec. 39.09(1)(b) and Fla. Stat. Sec. 39.01(10) with Fla.Stat. Sec. 39.09(3) and Fla.Stat. Sec. 39.11(1)(a)-(d). Pendarvis v. State, 104 So.2d 651 (Fla.App.1958) held that evidence inadequate to support a finding of dependency nevertheless may be adequate to support a refusal to restore cust......