LOUISE MARIE THOMPSON, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, DIVISION OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SERVICES, 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.
A natural mother appealed a summary dismissal of her petition to regain custody of two minor children who were permanently committed to state care. The court held that a permanent commitment order under Florida Statutes Section 39.11(6) permanently severs parental rights and precludes reopening commitment proceedings, though the parent may pursue adoption as an independent remedy.
The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a permanent commitment order permanently severs all parental rights and precludes reopening commitment proceedings through means other than a proper appeal of the original order. However, the court noted that a natural parent may pursue independent adoption proceedings to establish new rights to the children.
[1] A permanent order of commitment permanently deprives natural parents of any right to the child and divests the court of jurisdiction over the child in commitment proceedi…
[2] A statute providing that a permanent order of commitment "shall permanently deprive the parents . …
Previewing 2 of 4 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“a permanent order of commitment "shall permanently deprive the parents . of any right to the child," and that, once an order of permanent commitment has been entered, "the court shall no longer exercise jurisdiction over the child. . ."”
Establishes the statutory framework permanently divesting parental rights and court jurisdiction upon permanent commitment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLouise Marie Thompson's two minor children were permanently committed to the state's care in 1974. Thompson did not appeal the original permanent comm…
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 Adoption Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
NATHAN, Judge.
This is an appeal from a summary dismissal of her petition to regain custody by the natural mother of two minor children who were permanently committed to the state’s care. Appellant did not appeal the original order of permanent commitment when it was entered in 1974. The sole question on appeal is whether the trial court correctly construed the provisions of Section 39.11(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.1977).
This section provides, in pertinent parts, that a permanent order of commitment “shall permanently deprive the parents . of any right to the child,” and that, once an order of permanent commitment has been entered, “the court shall no longer exercise jurisdiction over the child. . ."
Appellant contends that the statute, read as a whole, contemplates adoption as the reason for requiring finality of commitment procedures, and that where adoption proceedings have not been instituted, the statute should not preclude the court from hearing the natural parent’s petition to regain custody. She contends that unless she is allowed to re-open the original proceedings, she will have no avenue by which to seek permission to regain custody of her children.
We disagree, and affirm the ruling of the court below. Any rights the natural mother may have had to the children have been permanently lost. To allow final proceedings to be re-opened by means other than a proper appeal of the original order would be to wrench from the word “permanent” its intended meaning in this statute.
But this does not preclude her from establishing new rights through independent adoption proceedings. Once an order of permanent commitment is entered, the Division of Family Services stands in the shoes of the natural parents. Although the statute deprives the court of further jurisdiction over the child as far as the commitment proceedings are concerned, it has no effect on the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction over adoption proceedings. Thus appellant may petition the Circuit Court, as anyone else, for the right to adopt the children, and appropriate means are available for a complete review of her petition.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green v. State, 412 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…d. As a consequence, the natural mother was permanently deprived of her rights to the child. § 39.41(4), Fla.Stat. (1979); In the Interest of C. M. M., 364 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Thompson v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 353 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The permanent order of commitment was not appealed. The termination order was appended to HRS’ motion to dismiss the amended petition for adoption. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, with prejudice, ostensibly on the…
-
Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. DOE, 659 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…opinion on rehearing and certification, 20 Fla.L.Weekly D340 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 3, 1995); Green v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 412 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); and Thompson v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 353 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); (2) where the intervenors are grandparents who previously had legal visitation granted in a dissolution proceeding, In re Adoption of a Minor Child, 593 So. 2d 185 (Fla.1991); In the Interest of M.L.M., 528 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 1st DC…
-
In the Interest of C. M. M. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 364 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…that there is no error. The amended order does not purport to affect Mrs. Harmon’s rights to petition for adoption in a subsequent proceeding and does not affect whatever rights she may have. Thompson v. Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 353 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The record before us contains substantial competent evidence that the dependency adjudication meets the requirements of Section 39.11, Florida Statutes (1977). The order appealed from is AFFIRMED. ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.…