## Facts

- An 11-year-old child filed a petition in juvenile court seeking termination of his natural mother’s parental rights and separately sought adoption by his foster parents.
- The trial court ruled the child had standing/capacity to initiate the termination action and appointed one of his lawyers as attorney ad litem.
- Additional termination petitions concerning the mother were later filed by the foster parents, the child’s guardian ad litem, and the state agency.
- The trial court consolidated and tried the termination and adoption matters together.
- The trial court terminated the mother’s parental rights on grounds including abandonment and neglect and granted the foster parents’ adoption petition.
- The mother appealed the termination and adoption orders, challenging (among other matters) the child’s capacity to file, the burden of proof, and the combined trial procedure.
- The foster father cross-appealed the denial of a motion for summary judgment regarding the applicable burden of proof.

## Issues

1. Whether an unemancipated minor has legal capacity to file a petition to terminate parental rights in the minor’s own name.
2. What burden of proof applies to termination of parental rights proceedings, and whether the trial court applied the correct standard.
3. Whether it was procedural error to try termination of parental rights and adoption petitions simultaneously.
4. Whether the evidence supported termination on abandonment under the required burden of proof.

## Decision

- The appellate court held the minor lacked legal capacity to initiate the termination action in his own name; the trial court erred on capacity.
- The capacity error was harmless because proper termination petitions were later filed by authorized adult parties and the state agency.
- The court confirmed termination of parental rights requires proof by clear and convincing evidence and upheld the trial court’s use of that standard; the denial of summary judgment was affirmed.
- The court held it was error to try termination and adoption together because it risks turning termination into an improper comparison between the natural parent and prospective adoptive parents.
- The court affirmed termination of the mother’s parental rights, concluding there was clear and convincing evidence of abandonment.
- The court reversed the adoption order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with proper procedure and sequencing.

## Legal Principles

- An unemancipated minor generally lacks capacity to initiate litigation in the minor’s own name; termination proceedings must be brought through legally authorized representatives (e.g., guardian/next friend, state agency, or other authorized petitioners).
- Termination of parental rights requires proof by clear and convincing evidence due to the fundamental nature of the parent-child relationship.
- Termination of parental rights should be adjudicated independently of, and before, adoption; combining the proceedings risks an improper “best parent” comparison rather than a focused inquiry into statutory grounds for termination.
- A procedural defect related to who initiated the action may be treated as harmless when independent, properly filed petitions support the court’s authority to proceed.
- Appellate review generally defers to supported factual findings on abandonment when the correct evidentiary standard is applied.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that a minor could not independently initiate termination proceedings, reaffirmed the clear-and-convincing burden for terminating parental rights, condemned simultaneous termination-and-adoption trials, affirmed the mother’s termination for abandonment, and reversed the adoption for procedural error.


Kingsley v. Kingsley, 623 So. 2d 780 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)