Case Name: In the Interest of BABY BOY A., a child
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-06-14
Citations: 544 So. 2d 1136
Docket Number: No. 88-2702
Parties: In the Interest of BABY BOY A., a child.
Judges: DELL, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 544
Pages: 1136–1138

Head Matter:
In the Interest of BABY BOY A., a child.
No. 88-2702.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
June 14, 1989.
Erskine C. Rogers III, West Palm Beach, for appellant-Richard Muller.
Bennett S. Cohn and Morris G. Miller of Cohen, Scherer, Cohn & Silverman, P.A., North Palm Beach, for appellee-Adoption Services, Inc., d/b/a Chosen Children.

Opinion:
POLEN, Judge.
Appellant, the putative father of the minor child, seeks reversal of the trial court's final order permanently committing the child to appellee, Chosen Children, a licensed child-placing agency, for subsequent adoption.
At the permanent commitment hearing, the trial judge adjudicated the child dependent and made numerous findings of fact including:
On November 11, 1986, the child's mother surrendered the child to Adoption Services, Inc., doing business as Chosen Children, a duly licensed child placing agency, for subsequent adoption and waived notice of all hearings and further proceedings. She did also appear before the court to acknowledge her voluntary placement of the child. The court placed the child in the temporary custody of Adoption Services on December 1, 1986.
The putative father has not resided in the same home as the mother although he has provided some support for her and an older sibling. The father is still married to another woman in New York. The older sibling, Richard, has been previously adjudicated dependent on two occasions. He was first placed under protective supervision in the custody of his mother after being physically abused by the father. The mother was unable to provide suitable care, the child became malnourished, and was then placed in foster care.
The father was convicted and is serving time for aggravated child abuse upon Richard. He is on parole for a manslaughter conviction in New York and is wanted in that jurisdiction for parole violation. He has no viable plan for the care of the subject child were he free to assume parental responsibility. The father was in jail when the subject child was born and has remained in custody. Prior to his present incarceration, and other than his financial contributions, he offered little or no supervision or child care for Richard when he had full opportunity.
The trial court attempted to balance the rights of the child against those of appellant. We agree with the trial court that the best interest of the child is the primary concern. However, before terminating parental rights, the parent must be given every opportunity to preserve the family unit.
The legislature enacted chapters 39 and 409, Florida Statutes (1985), to serve the legislative intent that, once a child is adjudicated dependent, the child be either reunited with his parents, whenever possible, or placed in a permanent home as quickly as possible. Chapter 39 authorizes the trial court to commit the child, but this action must be in conjunction with the requirements of chapter 409.
The law requires the offering of either a performance agreement or performance plan prior to termination of parental rights. § 409.168(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1985). Failure to make the offering, however, does not automatically preclude termination of parental rights. Sections 39.-41(l)(f) and (f)(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), provide a mechanism whereby the trial court can permanently terminate a parent's rights and commit the child to an agency for subsequent adoption, if the trial court finds it manifestly in the best interest of the child to do so and finds by clear and convincing evidence. that the parent has abused or neglected the child.
We recognize that a trial court need not wait until the prospective abuse or neglect occurs before severing the parental ties because the best interest of the child overrides parental rights. In the Interest of J.L.P., 416 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
In this matter, appellant was never offered the performance agreement. However, the trial court found clear and convincing evidence of prospective abuse or neglect sufficient to terminate appellant's parental rights. The trial court ultimately concluded it was manifestly in the best interest of the child to sever appellant's parental rights and permanently commit the child to appellee for subsequent adoption. We agree.
Accordingly, we affirm.
DELL, J., concurs.
WALDEN, J., dissents with opinion.