BRIAN WOLF AND KATHY WOLF, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 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.
The court held that the parents were not afforded due process when ordered to pay child support without notice or an opportunity to be heard.
A child was adjudicated a child in need of services and ordered detained. The order of detention included a provision requiring the parents to pay $30…
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 Shelter Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
A child was adjudicated to be "a child in need of services” because “habitually truant from school” as defined in section 39.01(8), Florida Statutes. Thereafter, an Order for Detention on Shelter Hearing was entered finding probable cause to believe that the child was delinquent and ordering the child placed at the Osceola Children’s [sic] Home “until accepted in Job Corps,” it being noted that the child was awaiting final disposition of the case.
In this case the parents of the child appeal the following sentence which was inserted in the Order of Detention on Shelter Hearing:
Parents are ordered to pay $30.00 per day to HRS as support and maintenance for said child instanter. The parents were not parties to the juvenile proceedings, there are no pleadings or other allegations giving them due process notice and an opportunity to defend any claim against them by HRS relating to the support and maintenance of the child and the record fails to show any evidence at the hearing relating to the child’s needs and parents’ means.
The parents were not accorded due process and the language in the order is hereby stricken. Our holding should not be read to imply that under the circumstances of this case, the parents are, or are not, legally responsible for payment for the support of their child under section 39.-11(2), Florida Statutes,1 section 402.33(2), Florida Statutes; or some other statute or authority. See also State v. In the Interest of S.M.G., 313 So. 2d 761 (Fla.1975); Dupes v. HRS, 536 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
As modified by striking the language quoted above, the order appealed is hereby
AFFIRMED.
GOSHORN, C.J., and PETERSON, J., concur. . The child in this case has not been adjudicated by the court to have committed a delinquent act.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Fuchs, 769 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 2000)…, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. M.B., 701 So. 2d 1155, 1157 n. 3 (Fla.1997)(defining delinquent child); F.A.T. v. State, 690 So. 2d 1347, 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(same); Wolf v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 588 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)(defining child in need of services); In re J.P., 586 So. 2d 485, 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)(defin-ing child in need of services); J.V. v. State, 516 So. 2d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)(defining dependent child). The fact that thes…
-
Fisher v. State, 840 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…vidence on both of these issues and ruled in the victim’s favor. At both the contempt hearings, the trial court inquired as to Appellant’s income and expenses and made explicit findings of fact that she could afford to pay. Compare with Wolf v. HRS, 588 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (parents not given notice, opportunity to defend claim, or present evidence at hearing). Appellant has been given sufficient notice and numerous meaningful opportunities to be heard. She has not been denied due process. It is ve…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- State v. In the Interest of S. M. G., 313 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1975)
- Mr. and Mrs. James Dupes v. State, 536 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)