Houston v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Houston v. Smith

264 S.E.2d 544, 153 Ga. App. 56, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 1671

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 10, 1980

Docket58944

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 264 S.E.2d 544 (Houston v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Houston v. Smith, 264 S.E.2d 544, 153 Ga. App. 56, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 1671 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from a final order denying a petition for adoption. Held:

1. The sole issue was whether the natural father had abandoned the child thereby eliminating the need for his consent to the adoption. The trial court found from conflicting evidence that the father had not abandoned the child. If there is any evidence to support the findings of the trial judge in adoption proceedings, this court must affirm. Hamrick v. Seward, 126 Ga. App. 5 (1) (189 SE2d 882); Nix v. Sanders, 136 Ga. App. 859, 860 (223 SE2d 21); Peterson v. Spence, 146 Ga. App. 209 (245 SE2d 871). We find there is evidence to support the finding and affirm.

2. Appellants’ contention that the trial court erred by failing to give the interests of the child proper consideration is not well taken. "If there is no parental [57]*57consent and the natural parents have not abandoned the child, the court is required to deny the adoption.” Johnson v. Eidson, 235 Ga. 820, 825 (221 SE2d 813).

Submitted November 20, 1979 Decided January 10, 1980. Susan W. Bisson, for appellants. James T. Fordham, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Smith and Birdsong, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from a final order denying a petition for adoption. Held:

1. The sole issue was whether the natural father had abandoned the child thereby eliminating the need for his consent to the adoption. The trial court found from conflicting evidence that the father had not abandoned the child. If there is any evidence to support the findings of the trial judge in adoption proceedings, this court must affirm. Hamrick v. Seward, 126 Ga. App. 5 (1) (189 SE2d 882); Nix v. Sanders, 136 Ga. App. 859, 860 (223 SE2d 21); Peterson v. Spence, 146 Ga. App. 209 (245 SE2d 871). We find there is evidence to support the finding and affirm.

2. Appellants’ contention that the trial court erred by failing to give the interests of the child proper consideration is not well taken. "If there is no parental [57]*57consent and the natural parents have not abandoned the child, the court is required to deny the adoption.” Johnson v. Eidson, 235 Ga. 820, 825 (221 SE2d 813).

Submitted November 20, 1979 Decided January 10, 1980. Susan W. Bisson, for appellants. James T. Fordham, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Smith and Birdsong, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 S.E.2d 544, 153 Ga. App. 56, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 1671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houston-v-smith-gactapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack