NELSON THOMAS AND HIPOMENE CADET, PETITIONERS,
v.
EDITH HOPPE, HRS DISTRICT 9 ADMINISTRATOR, JOHN ROMANO, HRS DISTRICT 9 PROGRAM MANAGER AND JUDITH HILL, HRS DISTRICT 9 SENIOR HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAM MANAGER, CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES, 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.
Parents Nelson Thomas and Hipomene Cadet sought habeas corpus relief from a permanent commitment order of their four minor children to HRS. The court vacated the commitment order due to the destruction of the hearing tape and the uncertainty regarding whether parents were properly advised of and waived their right to counsel, particularly given that one parent did not speak English.
The court vacated the permanent commitment order and remanded for an evidentiary hearing because the destruction of the hearing tape prevented determination of whether counsel was properly offered and waived. The court held that petitioners have a right to counsel in permanent commitment proceedings and that any waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and made with consideration of special circumstances such as language barriers.
[1] Natural parents are entitled to counsel, or appointed counsel if indigent, in cases involving the permanent commitment of their children.
[2] A court must determine whether a waiver of the right to counsel was knowing and intelligent.
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“Neither is there any dispute over the fact that petitioners, as natural parents, are entitled to counsel, or appointed counsel if indigent, in a case involving the permanent commitment of their children.”
Establishes the fundamental right of parents to counsel in permanent commitment proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1981, petitioners left their four minor children with non-relatives. The children were subsequently declared dependent and placed in temporary lega…
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 Language Barrier cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which petitioners Nelson Thomas and Hipomene Cadet seek relief from and order of permanent commitment to HRS of their four minor children. Petitioners claim that they were denied the right to counsel at the commitment hearing. For the reasons set forth below, we hereby vacate the order of permanent commitment and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of waiver of counsel.
The children were left by their parents with non-relatives in 1981, and were subsequently declared dependent and placed in temporary legal custody of HRS by court order. HRS later filed a petition for permanent commitment of the children in February, 1985. A hearing was held, at which both natural parents were present, but without counsel. From the pleadings, we are advised that petitioner Thomas spoke some English but that petitioner Cadet did not.
Petitioners claim that they were not advised of their right to counsel and that they did not waive the right during the permanent commitment proceedings. Respondents contend that petitioners were advised of their right to counsel, and that they knowingly and effectively waived the right at the permanent commitment hearing and on. the record. However, a tape recording of the hearing itself has since been erased from the juvenile court files, since no direct appeal was taken in one year from the hearing.
There is no dispute over this court’s jurisdiction over petitioner’s challenge by way of writ of habeas corpus. Crane v. Hayes, 253 So. 2d 435 (Fla.1971); In the Interest of M.S., 455 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Neither is there any dispute over the fact that petitioners, as natural parents, are entitled to counsel, or appointed counsel if indigent, in a case involving the permanent commitment of their children. See In the Interest of D.B. and D.S., 385 So. 2d 83 (Fla.1980); Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.560. What is at issue is whether petitioners were afforded the right to counsel, and whether they knowingly and intelligently waived that right. Also at issue is whether any special or unusual circumstances exist, such as a language barrier or inexperience with court proceedings, such that a waiver, even if tendered, should not be accepted by the trial court. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); Robinson v. State, 368 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
Since the only record which would answer these questions has been destroyed, and the parties hereto cannot stipulate as to what transpired at the commitment hearing, we find it necessary to vacate the permanent commitment order, reinstitute the temporary custody order for the children to remain with HRS, and to remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the waiver of counsel by petitioners. At this hearing, petitioners shall be afforded the services of an interpreter, and counsel, or the appointment of counsel if indigent. If after conducting this hearing the court determines that counsel was effectively waived, it shall reinstitute its permanent custody order. If waiver is not found, petitioners shall be afforded a new permanent commitment hearing with an interpreter and counsel.
GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur. LETTS, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
IN the Interest OF D.J.S. and J.S.G. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 563 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…r not. In the Interest of D.M.S., 528 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); White v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 483 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). See also In the Interest of R.K., 535 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Thomas v. Hoppe, 493 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). This is simply another reason why the complete court file below must be made part of the record on appeal before appellant can receive his full right to appellate review. . The incident at the boyfriend's condominium when John…
-
In the Interest of R.K., Jr., 535 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…r should be accepted, the trial court must consider special circumstances such as the parent’s mental condition, age, education, experience, the nature or complexity of the case, or other factors. Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.560(b)(1). See also, Thomas v. Hoppe, 493 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Although the final judgment of permanent commitment states that the appellant had “previously refused” counsel, our review of the record in this case and the supplement thereto leads us to conclude that rule 8.560 was not follo…
Authorities Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975)
- In the Interest of D. B. and D. S., 385 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1980)
- Crane v. Hayes, 253 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1971)
- Gardner v. State, 368 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Robinson v. State, 368 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- In the Interest of M.S., 455 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)