M.A.M., AS FATHER OF W.T.M., A MINOR CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES VISCOUNT, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that an order denying a natural father's motion to withdraw consent to adoption is appealable and that the father failed to prove his consent was obtained by fraud or duress.
The natural father consented to the adoption of his child by the stepfather. Over a year later, after the mother's death, the father moved to withdraw…
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 Appealability Of Interlocutory Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant, the natural father, appeals an order denying his motion to withdraw his consent to allow the adoption of his child. We affirm.
The child was born in 1994 and the parents divorced two years later. After several years in which there had been no contact between the father and the child, the mother remarried and, a year or so later, appellant signed a consent agreeing to adoption of the child by the stepfather. Over a year later, in the adoption proceeding, appellant filed a motion to with draw his consent. In the meantime, the mother had died. After an evidentiary hearing the trial court denied appellant’s motion to withdraw his consent and he appeals.
The stepfather argues that this order is not appealable; however, we disagree. Although the adoption proceedings are not final, this order is final as to the natural father because it totally disposes of the case as to him. Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(10.
As to the merits, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that appellant failed to prove that his consent was obtained by fraud or duress. Affirmed.
FARMER, C.J., and SHAHOOD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of S.N.W. v. S.C.W. & Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 912 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…] acles. Adoption Miracles filed this case as an original proceeding, seeking either a writ for mandamus, prohibition, or certio-rari. We conclude the order is a final order as to Adoption Miracles and thus subject to appeal. See M.A.M. v. Viscount, 848 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Citibank, N.A. v. Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co., 398 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Because the Department of Children and Family Services concedes that the trial court was required to permit Adoption Miracles to intervene p…