Barrett v. Reed

Barrett v. Reed, 363 So. 2d 14 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided: September 12, 1978
Docket: No. JJ-58
Judges: Per Curiam
Citations: 363 So. 2d 14

Cited by 4

Opinion — Per Curiam

363 So.2d 14 (1978)

Gary Dean BARRETT, Appellant,

Edward Thomas REED et Ux., Appellees.

No. JJ-58.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 12, 1978. Rehearing Denied October 26, 1978.

*15 Ned N. Julian, Jr. of Stenstrom, Davis & McIntosh, Sanford, for appellant.

Dale K. Bohner of Coble, McKinnon, Rothert, Bohner & Godbee, Daytona Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

An appeal from an order granting adoption of appellant's natural son to the mother and her new husband. We find insufficient evidence of abandonment and reverse.

The record reveals that appellant made no child support payments to his son for the 17 months between the dissolution of his marriage to the mother and the time of the hearing on this petition. Testimony also established, however, that the mother had moved with the child three times during that 17 month period without informing appellant of their whereabouts. Further, appellant inquired of the mother's relatives and they denied knowing her address.

We find that the record does not at this point support a finding of abandonment sufficient to justify a permanent severance of parental ties between appellant and his son. Neither party satisfied their mutual obligations here. While it is true that appellant was neglectful in maintaining contact with his son, it is also true that the mother failed in her duty to inform the father of changes in the child's address so that he could maintain such contact. Therefore, without prejudice to any future action based on additional facts, we reverse the trial court's order of adoption.

REVERSED.

SMITH, Acting C.J., and MELVIN, J., concur.

BOOTH, J., dissents without opinion.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts4

Relies on it most ⓘ

Hinkle v. Lindsey424 So. 2d 983 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
GT v. Adoption of AET725 So. 2d 404 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
Wylie v. Botos416 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
In re the Adoption of King373 So. 2d 384 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

Most recent

GT v. Adoption of AET725 So. 2d 404 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
Hinkle v. Lindsey424 So. 2d 983 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
Wylie v. Botos416 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
In re the Adoption of King373 So. 2d 384 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Sch. Bd. of Marion Cnty. v. Dist. Council 66, Int'l Bhd. of Painters & Allied Trades, 363 So. 2d 14 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)	1

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list