Case Name: In the Interest of K.A.F., a child. Marie FAATZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-12-08
Citations: 442 So. 2d 365
Docket Number: No. 81-1354
Parties: In the Interest of K.A.F., a child. Marie FAATZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Appellee.
Judges: ORFINGER, C.J., and DAUKSCH and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 442
Pages: 365–370

Head Matter:
In the Interest of K.A.F., a child. Marie FAATZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Appellee.
No. 81-1354.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Dec. 8, 1983.
James R. Valerino, Orlando, for appellant.
Douglas E. Whitney and Samuel Patterson Stafford, Orlando, for appellee.

Opinion:
COBB, Judge.
This is an appeal by the mother, Marie Faatz, from an order permanently committing her child, K.A.F., to the custody of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for adoption pursuant to section 39.41(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1981). The sole issue on appeal is whether the circuit court erred in severing the rights of the mother based on a finding of "abandonment" as that term is defined in section 39.01(1), Florida Statutes (1981). That statute provides:
39.01 Definitions. — When used in this chapter:
(1) "Abandoned" means a situation in which a parent who, while being able, makes no provision for the child's support and makes no effort to communicate with the child for a period of 6 months or longer. If a parent's efforts to support and communicate with the child during such a 6-month period are, in the opinion of the court, only marginal efforts that do not evince a settled purpose to assume all parental duties, the court may declare the child to be abandoned.
The extensive evidence adduced at the termination hearing, held in September, 1981, revealed that K.A.F. was adjudicated dependent in February, 1980, and placed in a foster home. There was evidence presented that Faatz, although consistently refusing to agree to K.A.F.'s adoption, broke numerous appointments with H.R.S., evinced "no concern for the child" and never requested to visit with her. The order entered by the trial judge specifically found:
7. Since [the child] has been in foster care her mother has failed to make any effort to communicate or visit her child on any occasion. The Court specifically finds that while being able she had no contact with the child and it has been in excess of 18 months that she has not communicated or visited. Any effort or expression of concern from the mother has been so marginal that it did not evince a settled purpose to assume all parental duties. For this reason, [the child] has been abandoned by her mother.
The appellant acknowledges that the trial court's finding in regard to the absence of contact for more than 18 months is supported by the evidence. Faatz argues, however, that the evidence also indicated that she was not "able" to make provision for the child's support and understand her visitation opportunities, due to her poverty and lack of education. H.R.S., on the other hand, points to contravening evidence in the record of the mother's indifference and irresponsibility which supports the determination by the trial judge. We agree that there was ample evidence to support the trial judge's finding of abandonment based upon the statutory definition. There also was ample evidence to support the trial judge's finding that the order of permanent commitment was in the best interest of the child.
We note that the appellant has not raised any challenge to the constitutionality of section 39.01(1), either at trial or on appeal; therefore, we decline to determine that issue in this case. See Hegeman-Harris Co., Inc. v. All State Pipe Supply Co., Inc., 400 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA), review dismissed, 411 So.2d 380 (1981); Allied General Contractors v. Superior Asphalt Co., 397 So.2d 727 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Accordingly, the order of permanent commitment entered below is
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, C.J., and DAUKSCH and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.
SHARP and COWART, JJ., dissent with opinions.
. Section 39.41(l)(f)la, Florida Statutes (1981), provides:
(1) When any child is adjudicated by a court to be dependent, the court having jurisdiction of the child shall have the power, by order, to:
(f)l. Permanently commit the child to the department or a licensed child-placing agency willing to receive the child for subsequent adoption if the court finds that it is manifestly in the best interests of the child to do so, and:
(a) If the court finds that the parent has abandoned, abused or neglected the child; .
. The public policy of Florida favors a permanent family life for children rather than merely an indefinite protective custody. See § 63.022, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1982).
. Several courts, however, including this one, previously have applied the "abandonment" test set out in section 39.01(1). See In Interest of R.V.F., Jr., 437 So.2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); In Interest of C.M.H., 413 So.2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); In Interest of J.F., 384 So.2d 713 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); P.S. v. State, 384 So.2d 656 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).