Elizabeth Carnrike appeals from an order permanently committing her two daughters to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), the effect of which is to terminate her parental rights.1 The lower court found the children had been “abused, neglected and abandoned.” The record does not support “abandonment” as defined in section 39.01(1), Florida Statutes (1981). However, it reflects that HRS sustained its burden of showing neglect and abuse by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, while we acknowledge the mother’s pathetic plight, our concern for the children’s welfare must prevail. In the Interest of J.L.P., 416 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

Accordingly, the order of permanent commitment is

AFFIRMED.

dissenting:

I do not agree that section 39.01(1), Florida Statutes (1981), correctly defines “abandonment” in terms of the legal meaning of that concept necessary to support a constitutional judicial finding that a parent has abandoned, that is, has voluntarily and intentionally relinquished, all parental rights in and to a child. See the dissent in In the Interest of: K.A.F., a child, Marie Faatz v. State of Florida, Department of HRS, No. 81-1354 (Fla. 5th DCA December 8, 1983) [1983 FLW], particularly note 1. Accordingly, I certainly do not agree that parental rights (as distinguished from custody) are subject to forfeiture because the parent has, in the opinion of a government agency and a judge, neglected or abused the child. § 39.41(l)(f)l.a., Fla.Stat. (1981). Nor do I agree that, when they are perceived to be in conflict, the courts can balance parental rights against the child’s best interests' or welfare and, when it is deemed to be in the child’s best interests, permanently terminate all of the natural parent’s rights and let HRS find the child parents who, in the opinion of HRS, possess better parental qualifications than did the natural parents.