SANDRA MONTEIRO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Sandra Monteiro appealed the adjudication of her child as a dependent of the state. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that a trial court cannot adjudicate a child dependent based solely on one parent's consent when the other parent denies the allegations and has been found to have no involvement in the abuse.
No. The consent to dependency by one parent does not affect the right of the other parent to continue in their parental role. When one parent denies the allegations, an adjudicatory hearing must be held. The trial court violated Florida statutory provisions and denied the non-consenting parent due process rights by adjudicating the child dependent without evidence or findings of fact.
[1] A parent's consent to the dependency of a child does not extinguish the other parent's right to contest the allegations and maintain their parental role.
[2] When one parent denies allegations in a dependency petition, an adjudicatory hearing must be held, even if the other parent consents to dependency.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The consent to dependency of a child by one parent does not affect the right of the other parent to continue in his or her parental role. Where One of the parents continues to deny the allegations in the dependency petition, an adjudicatory hearing must be held.”
Establishes the core legal principle that one parent's consent cannot deprive another parent of their right to contest dependency allegations and receive a hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHRS filed a dependency petition alleging child abuse and sexual abuse by the father. The father was enjoined from contact with the child, who remained…
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 Dependency Petition cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
The mother appeals an order adjudicating her child a dependent of the state. We reverse.
HRS filed a dependency petition alleging that the parents of the child had abused and neglected her and specifically that the father had sexually abused the child. The father was enjoined from any contact with the child and the child remained in the custody of the mother (who was then living separately from the father).
A report hearing was set for February 5, 1985. At this hearing, the state filed its second amended dependency petition which specifically indicated that the mother had no involvement in the sexual abuse charges. When it became apparent that the court was going to adjudicate on the merits at this “report” hearing, the mother’s counsel moved for a continuance so she could properly prepare for an adjudicatory hearing. This motion was not ruled upon. The father entered a plea of consent to the petition. Based on this fact alone, the court adjudicated the child dependent. The court heard no testimony and read none of the reports prior to its ruling. The mother objected to the denial of her right to be heard on the allegations and she never consented to the dependency of her child.
The consent to dependency of a child by one parent does not affect the right of the other parent to continue in his or her parental role. Where One of the parents continues to deny the allegations in the dependency petition, an adjudicatory hearing must be held. § 39.408, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1984). The court failed to consider any evidence and, thus, made no findings of fact on the allegations against the mother.
The trial court’s action in adjudicating the child dependent under the circumstanc es of this case violated various provisions of chapter 39 of the Florida Statutes, and denied the mother due process rights guaranteed to her under the United States and Florida constitutions. U.S. Const, amend XIV, § 1; art. I, § 9, Fla. Const.; § 39.408, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1984); § 39.409, Fla.Stat. (1983); A.T.P. v. State, 427 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); A.Z. v. State, 383 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). See also § 39.001(2)(d), Fla.Stat. (1983); In re A.D.J., 466 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
Accordingly, the adjudication of dependency is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
White v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 483 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…t.), a parent, before being called on to plead to a dependency petition alleging child abuse, neglect or abandonment, should be advised by counsel (1) of the consequences of a plea of consent to a dependency proceeding, see, e.g., Monteiro v. State, 477 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), (2) of the right to a hearing, (3) of the effect of a dependency adjudication as to a subsequent permanent termination, and (4) of his or her rights at the time of entering into a performance agreement,7 as well as at the permane…
-
Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families v. Y.C., 82 So. 3d 1139 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…on that the order to provide services was improperly entered on the 'default' is that the adjudication was contrary to the court’s obligation to hold an adjudicatory hearing after the father’s objection. As this court explained in Monteiro v. State, 477 So. 2d 45, 45-6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985): The consent to dependency of a child by one parent does not affect the right of the other parent to continue in his or her parental role. Where one of the parents continues to deny the allegations in the dependency petitio…
-
Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, 894 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2005)…e a disposition hearing to be conducted within 15 days.” If any parent or legal custodian denies the allegations of the dependency petition, it is a denial of due process to move to disposition without an adjudicatory hearing. See Monteiro v. State, 477 So. 2d 45, 45-46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (finding that where one of the parents denied the allegations in the dependency petition, the trial court’s action in adjudicating the child dependent without an adjudicatory hearing violated the non-consenting mother’s due…
Previewing 3 of 4 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 A.D.J. and D.L.J, 466 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- In re The Interest of A. Z. v. State, 383 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- In the Interest of A.T.P. v. State, 427 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)