CONCEPCION PADILLA, APPELLANT,
v.
CATHOLIC SERVICE BUREAU, INC., 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's order committing the child to the care of the Catholic Service Bureau, finding no abuse of discretion.
Appellant's 7-year-old son was permanently committed to the care and custody of the Catholic Service Bureau for adoption following an evidentiary hear…
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 Parental Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Concepcion Padilla, appeals an order permanently committing her 7% year old son to the care, custody and control of the Catholic Service Bureau for subsequent adoption following a full evidentiary hearing.
Appellant principally argues that the trial judge misinterpreted the legal effect of the evidence presented by entering the subject order of permanent custody. We cannot agree.
Although parents have the God-given right to the care, custody and companionship of their children, the right is not absolute but subject to the overriding principle that it is the ultimate welfare or best interest of the children which must prevail. Noeling v. State, Fla.1956, 87 So. 2d 593; Justice v. Van Eepoel, Fla.1961, 132 So. 2d 407; In re Pendarvis, Fla.App. 1961, 133 So. 2d 424; Potvin v. Keller, Fla.App.1974, 299 So. 2d 149.
After a careful scrutiny of the record on appeal, we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in determining that the best interest of the child would be commitment of his permanent custody to the appellee, as the evidence amply supported said ruling.
We also considered appellant’s other point on appeal and conclude said point is lacking in merit. See In re Interest of Camm, Fla.1974, 294 So. 2d 318.
Accordingly, the order of custody is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
YEM v. State, 462 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…verriding consideration, however, is the welfare of the child. Potvin v. Keller, 313 So. 2d 703 (Fla.1975); In re Camm, 294 So. 2d 318 (Fla.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 866, 95 S.Ct. 121, 42 L.Ed.2d 103 (1974); Padilla v. Catholic Service Bureau, Inc., 315 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The supreme court has stated that courts: should in every instance be guided by an effort to consider first and primarily the welfare of the child. While the rights of [*1150] the parents must, of course, always be observed, nev…
-
Louie L. Wainwright v. Moore, 374 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…o and no findings whatsoever were made regarding the best interests of the child in accordance with In Re Interest of Camm, 294 So. 2d 318 (Fla.1974); In Re Pendarvis, 133 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961); and Padilla v. Catholic Service Bureau, Inc., 315 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The trial court simply found that the above cited statute gave plaintiff the exclusive and apparently the irrefutable right to decide that her child would remain with her in prison for the first eighteen months of the child’s lif…
Authorities Cited
- In re In the Interest of Vincent Camm, 294 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1974)
- Noeling v. State, 87 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1956)
- Annice A. Justice v. VAN Eepoel, 132 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1961)
- In the Interest of William T. Pendarvis, Jr., 133 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Potvin v. Keller, 299 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)