Pomeroy v. Braithwaite

409 So. 2d 1178, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19316
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 17, 1982
DocketNo. 81-848
StatusPublished

This text of 409 So. 2d 1178 (Pomeroy v. Braithwaite) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pomeroy v. Braithwaite, 409 So. 2d 1178, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19316 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

SHARP, Judge.

Pomeroy appeals from a judgment approving the adoption of his child by a stepparent, and severing his parental relationship with her. We reverse and remand for the reasons stated in this opinion.

The severance of a parent-child relationship is an extreme and harsh judicial act, and it should not be done unless the trial judge is convinced1 that the statutory basis for this remedy has been clearly established.2 The applicable statute provides the only grounds for an adoption in this context:

The court may excuse the consent of the following individuals to an adoption:
(1) A parent who has deserted a child without affording means of identification or who has abandoned a child;3

In this case the only possible statutory basis for granting an adoption without Pomeroy’s consent is abandonment because there was no evidence of desertion. The trial court here merely found the adoption was in “the best interest of the child” and that the stepparent was a “fit and proper person to adopt the minor child.”

Our review of the record shows that the facts tending to show abandonment are in conflict. Although the contacts between [1180]*1180Pomeroy and his child were infrequent during the two years prior to filing the petition, this could have been largely caused by the nature of the father’s job (a worker on an off-shore oil rig), the long distances between the parent and child (Texas — Florida), adverse economic circumstances experienced by the father, and a conscious effort on the part of the custodial parent to extinguish the relationship between the child and her natural father. She returned his Christmas presents, did not allow a requested summer visitation, and did not keep Pomeroy informed of the child’s current address.4

As an appellate court we did not hear the testimony, and we cannot resolve the conflicts in the record, nor determine credibility of witnesses. Therefore, we reverse the judgment and remand this cause to the trial court for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether this petition should be granted. Because of the lapse of time between the trial (May 4, 1981) and this court’s opinion, the trial court may, in its discretion, take additional testimony on the relevant issues.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

Related

Stanley v. Illinois
405 U.S. 645 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Wisconsin v. Yoder
406 U.S. 205 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Quilloin v. Walcott
434 U.S. 246 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Solomon v. McLucas
382 So. 2d 339 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Roy v. Holmes
111 So. 2d 468 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
409 So. 2d 1178, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pomeroy-v-braithwaite-fladistctapp-1982.