IN RE THE INTEREST OF M.P., A CHILD. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, PETITIONER,
v.
LAKE COUNTY, ETC., ET. AL., RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied review because the issue in the current case was clearly distinguishable from the issues decided in a prior conflicting case.
The trial court appointed a guardian ad litem for minor children in dependency proceedings and assessed fees against HRS, which the district court uph…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Professional Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
EHRLICH, Justice.
This cause is before the Court because of apparent conflict between the decision of the district court below, In re the Interest of M.P., 453 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), and our decision in In the Interest of D.B., 385 So. 2d 83 (Fla.1980). We accepted jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.
The instant case grows out of dependency proceedings wherein the trial court appointed an attorney as guardian ad litem pursuant to section 827.07(16), Florida Statutes (1981) to represent the interest of two minor children whose permanent removal from their parents was being sought by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitation Services. The trial court assessed a fee against HRS for the lawyer’s services and costs expended and that assessment was upheld by the district court.
In the Interest ofD.B. arose prior to the effective date of section 827.07(16), Florida Statutes (1981). In pertinent part, that case involved orders of the circuit court directing the state to pay attorney’s fees to counsel acting as guardian ad litem for the children involved therein. This Court concluded that there was no constitutional right to counsel for the subject children in a juvenile dependency proceeding and that under such circumstances the judge should use all available legal aid services. When these services are unavailable, he should request private counsel to provide the necessary services, which services are part of the lawyer’s historical professional responsibility to represent the poor. The Court in its opinion made passing reference to section 827.07(16), but that statute was not involved and played no part in the Court’s decision.
Because we find the issue in this case clearly distinguishable from the issues decided in In the Interest of D.B., we deny review.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Delisle v. Crane Co., 258 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 2018)…t conflict jurisdiction. [*1237] We have long recognized that a case decided on the basis of a statutory provision cannot be in conflict with an earlier case that pre-dated the effective date of that statutory provision. See In re Interest of M.P. , 472 So. 2d 732, 733 (Fla. 1985) (denying review on the ground that the asserted conflict case "arose prior to the effective date" of the controlling statute in the case on review and therefore was "clearly distinguishable"). This follows from the self-evident prop…
-
In the Interest of C.T., 503 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…n cases filed after July 1, 1985, it does have responsibility for payment of fees in the thirty-five cases filed before that date. See §§ 415.508 & 415.509, Fla.Stat. (1985); In the Interest of M.P., 453 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), review denied, 472 So. 2d 732 (Fla.1985); In the Interest of R.W., 409 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); and Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. A.H., 459 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Therefore we affirm that part of the order that charges HRS with responsibili…
-
In re E.F. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 639 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…ior to the supreme court’s administrative order, both this court and the Fifth District suggested that the primary responsibility for the Guardian Ad Litem Program rested with HRS. In re [*645] M.P., 453 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), review denied, 472 So. 2d 732 (Fla.1985); In re R.W., 409 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), review denied, 418 So. 2d 1279 (Fla.1982). Even if the supply of guardians has become, in part, a judicial function, we cannot delay or deny a child the right to be placed in a suitable per…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In the Interest of D. B. and D. S., 385 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1980)
- In re the Interest of M.P. v. Lake Cnty., 453 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)