Dependency Law Finder

Florida's dependency statutes, court rules and DCF operating procedures, with the appellate opinions that apply them

data.robertlathamesq.org · All tools

Before you use this site

This site aggregates legal authorities from a variety of public sources. It is AI and human reviewed. Text processing errors can occur. Always check the information here against the official linked source.

This site is publicly available. Use for general research only. Do not submit confidential or identifiable case information.

I don't agree: show the official sources

In re C.K.G.365 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) · 2D78-1622

Court
2nd DCA
Decided
1978-12-13
Law cited
§ 39.11
On CourtListener
365 So.2d 424 (1978)

In the INTEREST of C.K.G., a/k/a C. G., and J. W. G., Jr., a/k/a J. G., Minor Children.

No. 78-1622.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 13, 1978.

*425 Paul W. Ferrell, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order permanently committing the appellant's children to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for the purpose of adoption.

The court resolved the conflicting evidence concerning the fitness of the appellant as a mother and the best interests of the children by holding that the preponderance of the evidence favored the Department. In so ruling we believe the court employed the wrong standard of proof.

The courts of Florida have consistently held in adoption cases that the evidence relied upon to permanently deprive parents of the custody of their offspring must be clear and convincing. Torres v. Van Eepoel, 98 So.2d 735 (Fla. 1957); Rose v. Rose, 128 So.2d 156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961); Roy v. Holmes, 111 So.2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959); In re De Walt's Adoption, 101 So.2d 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). Since the end result of proceedings under Section 39.11(d), Florida Statutes (1977), is the permanent severance of parental custody, the same standard should apply. Cf. Kersey v. State, 124 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded so that the court can decide the case upon the proper standard of proof. In reaching its conclusion the court may consider all evidence previously admitted as well as any further evidence which may be submitted on relevant events occurring since the last hearing.

GRIMES, C.J., and SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.

Opinion text: CourtListener, Free Law Project. Not an official reporter; check the court's version before citing.