IN THE INTEREST OF C.M., A CHILD
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 mother appealed an adjudication of dependency based on her repeated incarcerations. The court reversed, holding that the trial court failed to comply with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.325(c) by not determining whether the mother's stipulation to dependency was made knowingly and voluntarily.
The trial court failed to comply with the rule. The court must make an explicit determination that any admission or consent to dependency is voluntary and made with full understanding of the allegations and consequences. The mother's mere presence at the disposition hearing did not establish that the stipulation was knowing and voluntary, nor did it relieve the trial court of its obligation to follow the rule.
[1] A court must determine that any admission or consent to a finding of dependency is made voluntarily and with a full understanding of the allegations and consequences.
[2] A parent's attorney cannot stipulate to a finding of dependency without the parent's knowing and voluntary consent.
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 court shall determine that any admission or consent to a finding of dependency is made voluntarily and with a full understanding of the nature of the allegations and the possible consequences of such admission or consent.”
States the mandatory requirement from Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.325(c) that the trial court must follow
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 the mother's repeated incarcerations created an unstable environment for the child. The incarcerated mother w…
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 Adjudication cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The mother appeals an order adjudicating her child dependent. We reverse.
HRS filed a dependency petition alleging that the mother, by her repeated incarcerations, had failed to provide a stable environment for the child. The incarcerated mother was not present at the adjudicatory hearing, but was represented by an attorney who is not involved in the instant proceedings. Counsel orally stipulated to dependency, stating that the stipulation was authorized by the mother, and that the mother was aware of the ramifications of dependency. Based upon this stipulation, the trial court entered an order of adjudication. A disposition hearing followed and, though the mother was in attendance, the trial court did not take the opportunity to inquire whether the stipulation was knowingly and voluntarily made. The day after the disposition hearing, and prior to entry of an order, the mother filed a motion to withdraw her stipulation, alleging that it was unauthorized and not voluntary. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion and reaffirmed the adjudication of dependency.
Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.325(c) provides, in pertinent part:
The parent or custodian may admit or consent to a finding of dependency. The court shall determine that any admission or consent to a finding of dependency is made voluntarily and with a full understanding of the nature of the allegations and the possible consequences of such admission or consent....
(Emphasis added). Clearly, the trial court failed tt> make the necessary determination in the instant case. The record reveals that the trial judge never inquired of the mother whether her stipulation to a finding of dependency was intelligent and voluntary. The mother’s mere presence at the disposition hearing did not conclusively establish that the earlier stipulation was knowing and voluntary, nor did it relieve the trial court of its obligation to follow the clear dictates of the rule.
Accordingly, the adjudication of dependency is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED with directions that the mother be permitted to withdraw her stipulation and proceed to an adjudicatory hearing.
MINER, WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.S. and J.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 777 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…represented by counsel. The court shall incorporate these findings into its order in addition to findings of fact specifying the act or acts causing dependency, by whom committed, and facts upon which the findings are based. In In Interest of C.M., 632 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), the First District reversed an adjudication of dependency holding that the trial court failed to find that the mother’s stipulation to dependency, which she subsequently sought to withdraw, was knowingly and voluntarily made. Th…
-
K.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 760 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…itative Services, 649 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) in which this court reversed an order determining children to be dependent based upon the trial court’s failure to set out factual findings to support the order. Similarly, in In Interest of C.M., 632 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), the court held that the trial court’s failure to comply with rule 8.325(c) warranted a reversal of its dependency adjudication and remand of the cause to the trial court with directions that the child’s mother be permitted to wi…
-
In the Interest of I.D.M. v. State, 779 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…. 8.325(c). This court and others have reversed adjudications of dependency based on consent when the trial court has failed to make the required findings. See In the Interest of S.H., 642 So. 2d 809, 810 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); In the Interest of C.M., 632 So. 2d 1093, 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Cf. Bailey v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 703 So. 2d 1224, 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (affirming the denial of motion to withdraw consent because the record reflected that the trial court carefully question…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence