LUIS EDUARDO RAMOS, APPELLANT,
v.
MAXIMO E. SANABRIA AND ILIANA (JORGE) SANABRIA, APPELLEES
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 an adoption judgment because the trial court's finding of parental abandonment was inadequate and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, and because the court improperly applied a best-interest-of-the-child standard rather than the statutory abandonment standard.
A trial court cannot terminate parental rights and grant adoption based on a best-interest-of-the-child standard; abandonment must be found by clear and convincing evidence.
[1] Termination of parental rights for adoption requires clear and convincing evidence of abandonment, not merely a best-interest-of-the-child determination.
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 intelligence“there has been an almost total abandonment of the minor by his natural father”
Trial court's finding regarding Ramos's conduct since 1974
Luis Ramos and the mother of Edward Ramos divorced in 1974. Maximo Sanabria petitioned to adopt Edward, Ramos's natural son. The trial court found Ram…
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
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
We reverse the judgment under review which granted Maximo Sanabria’s petition to adopt Edward Ramos, the natural son of the appellant, Luis Ramos. The trial court found that the necessity for the appellant’s consent to the adoption was obviated because since 1974, the year in which Ramos and the present Mrs. Sanabria were divorced, “there has been an almost total abandonment of the minor by his natural father.” (emphasis supplied).
Even if, arguendo, we were to disregard the trial court’s inadequate finding that Ramos “almost” abandoned his child, see § 63.072(1), Fla.Stat. (1981), we nonetheless must hold that even an unqualified finding of abandonment would not change the result, since such a finding is not supported by clear and convincing evidence as required. See Matter of Adoption of Cottrill, 388 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Solomon v. McLucas, 382 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). It is apparent that the trial court, in granting the adoption, applied a “best interest of the child” test, which, while perfectly appropriate to deprive Ramos of custody of the child (an issue not here in dispute), is totally inappropriate to permanently deprive him of his parental rights. Stevens v. Johnson, 427 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Matter of Adoption of Cottrill, 388 So. 2d 302; Solomon v. McLucas, 382 So. 2d 339.
Reversed with directions to vacate the final judgment of adoption, including the change of name of the minor, and enter judgment denying the petition for adoption.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of A.B. v. State, 444 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…abandonment by father, no adoption by stepfather]; Jenkins v. In the Interest of C.A.J., 434 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) [citing T.G.T., supra]; Nelson v. Herndon, 371 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) [no abandonment, no adoption]; Ramos v. Sanabria, 429 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) [no clear and convincing evidence of abandonment, no adoption]; V. v. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 427 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) [abandonment permits permanent commitment for adoption]; In re Adop…
-
In re the Adoption OF Baby Girl "C" v. K.S., 511 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…grounds upon which adoption may be granted in the absence of the written consent of a natural parent whose consent is required are only those specified in that section. The best interests of the child is not one of them. See also Ramos v. Sanabria, 429 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (“A ‘best interest of the child’ test ... is totally inappropriate to permanently deprive [the natural father] of his parental rights.”); Matter of Adoption of Cottrill, 388 So. 2d 302, 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (“The best interests…
-
In re The Adoption OF J.G.R., 432 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…t erred in finding that the natural father abandoned his son, which error necessarily renders void the adoption judgment. We reverse upon authority of Prangley, supra; Hinkle v. Lindsey, 424 So. 2d 983, 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) and Ramos v. Sanabria, 429 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). REVERSED. DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Solomon v. Donald L. McLUCAS et ux., 382 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- In re the Matter of Adoption of John Steven Cottrill. Nancy Collins v. Cottrill, 388 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Caribe Tugboat Corp. v. Duffy, 427 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Terrice Stevens and Yolando Stevens v. Johnson, 427 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)