SHARON HAMILTON, APPELLANT,
v.
ANN BEARD AND EUGENE BEARD, 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.
Sharon Hamilton adopted her husband's biological child with the child's father's written consent. The maternal grandparents later moved to set aside the adoption, claiming they were surprised and had not received notice. The appellate court reversed, holding that adoption proceedings are statutory, only the father's consent was required, and the grandparents had no right to notice or to challenge the adoption.
The trial court erred in setting aside the final adoption judgment. Because the child's natural mother was deceased and the father had custody, only his written consent was necessary for the adoption. The maternal grandparents were not entitled to notice of the adoption proceedings, and they could not challenge the adoption based on lack of notice.
[1] A final judgment of adoption, once entered, can only be set aside under specific statutory grounds.
[2] In adoption proceedings, only the consent of the natural parent with custody is required when the other natural parent is deceased.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Adoption proceedings are wholly statutory in nature since the right of adoption was unknown at common law.”
Establishes the legal foundation that adoption rights derive solely from statute, not common law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSharon Hamilton filed a petition on March 16, 1984, to adopt her husband Paul W. Hamilton's biological minor child, with the father's written consent.…
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 Visitation cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
Sharon Hamilton contends the trial court erred in setting aside a final judgment of adoption. We agree.
On March 16, 1984, Sharon Hamilton filed a petition to adopt the natural minor child of her husband, Paul W. Hamilton. Her husband joined in the petition, filing a written consent for the adoption. On April 30, 1984, the trial court entered a final judgment of adoption in her favor. On October 5, 1984, Ann and Eugene Beard, the child’s maternal grandparents, moved to set aside the final judgment of adoption. They alleged that at the time the adoption order was entered, they had pending a petition seeking visitation rights with the child, and the Hamiltons had failed to notify them of the filing of the petition for adoption.
While the motion to set aside the adoption was pending, another trial judge dismissed the Beards’ petition for reasonable visitation based on the final order of adoption. The Beards did not appeal this order of dismissal.
On July 29, 1985, a third trial judge granted the Beards’ motion to set aside the adoption. This judge found that “the maternal grandparents were surprised by the action of the natural father and [his wife] and could not, with reasonable diligence, protect themselves from the consequences of such surprise.”
We agree with Sharon Hamilton that the trial court erred in setting aside the final order of adoption. Adoption proceedings are wholly statutory in nature since the right of adoption was unknown at common law. In re Adoption of Palmer, 129 Fla. 630, 176 So. 537 (1937); Harden v. Thomas, 329 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The child’s natural mother had died in 1980, and the natural father had custody of the child. Only his consent to the adoption was necessary, which he gave in writing. §§ 63.062(1) and 63.122(4)(c), Fla.Stat. (1983). Thus, the maternal grandparents were not entitled to notice of the adoption proceedings.
At oral argument, the parties’ counsel acknowledged that the grandparents could not avail themselves of section 752.-07, Florida Statutes (Supp.1984), which provides for survival of visitation rights of grandparents in a stepparent adoption. Even if we could apply that statute, it would not assist the grandparents here because they had no court-ordered visitation rights before the adoption. In any event, the visitation issue involved a separate proceeding which culminated in a final order adverse to the grandparents, and they failed to take an appeal from that order. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for reinstatement of the final judgment of adoption.
DANAHY and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. COX, 627 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…andard applied, a reasonable expectation of privacy must exist.” Winfield, 477 So. 2d at 547. Moreover, adoption is simply not a private matter. As the trial court recognized, adoption is not a right; it is a statutory privilege. Hamilton v. Beard, 490 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); 2 C.J.S. Adoption of Persons § 3 (1972). Thus, adopting a child is not the same as choosing to have a natural family. Cf. Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality & Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 97 S.Ct. 2094, 53 L.Ed.2d 14…
-
Beard v. Hamilton, 512 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…rovided to the grandparents. This adoption was overturned by a subsequent order of the trial court apparently to give the grandparents a chance to establish a right to visitation. But the adoption was reinstated by our decision in Hamilton v. Beard, 490 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).1 Following the initial order of adoption, the grandparents’ first petition for visitation rights was granted by order dated September 17, 1984. But this order was orally vacated by the trial court on October 5,1984, which order…
-
In re The Adoption OF A.P. MC., 573 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed without prejudice to the appellant seeking visitation rights pursuant to section 752.07, Florida Statutes (1989). See Beard v. Hamilton, 512 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 2d [*448] DCA 1987); Hamilton v. Beard, 490 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). SCHOONOVER, C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- In re Adoption of Carol Palmer, 129 Fla. 630 (Fla. 1937)
- Harden v. Thomas, 329 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)