IN THE INTEREST OF I.D.M., A MINOR CHILD, V.M., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 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 Mother appealed the trial court's refusal to allow her to withdraw her consent to the dependency adjudication of her child. The court reversed because the trial court failed to comply with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.325(c) by not making required findings that the Mother's consent was voluntary and given with full understanding of the consequences.
The trial court's adjudication of dependency based on the Mother's consent must be reversed because the trial court failed to make the findings required by rule 8.325(c). Even with counsel's representation and the Mother's stated agreement to consent, the trial court was obligated to question the Mother directly about her understanding of the allegations and consequences.
[1] A trial court must determine that a parent's consent to a dependency adjudication is given voluntarily and with a full understanding of the allegations and consequences.
[2] A trial court must advise a parent of their right to counsel before accepting a consent to dependency.
Previewing 2 of 6 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, and that the parent has been advised of the right to be represented by counsel.”
Establishes the mandatory requirements of Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.325(c) that the trial court failed to follow
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceV.M. (the Mother) consented to the dependency of her child I.D.M. The Mother was represented by counsel who told the trial court that the Mother had a…
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
PARKER, Acting Chief Judge.
V.M. (the Mother) challenges the trial court’s orders refusing to allow her to withdraw her consent to the dependency of I.D.M. and adjudicating I.D.M. dependent. Because the trial court failed to determine that the Mother’s consent was given voluntarily and with a full understanding of the possible consequences of the consent, we reverse.
Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.325(c) requires the trial court to make specific findings before accepting a consent to dependency. The rule states in pertinent part:
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, and that the parent has been advised of the right to be 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.
Fla. R. Juv. P. 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 questioned the parents to ensure that they understood the consequences of their consent).
In this case, the trial court never made the findings required by rule 8.325(c). The trial court never questioned the Mother concerning whether she understood the nature of the allegations against her or the possible consequences of her consent to the dependency adjudication. Even though the Mother was represented by counsel and counsel told the trial court that the Mother had agreed to consent, it was incumbent upon the trial court to question the Mother on these issues. See C.M., 632 So. 2d at 1094. “The mother’s mere presence at the ... 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.” Id. Because the trial court failed to follow the requirements of rule 8.325(c) in accepting the Mother’s consent, we are compelled to reverse the trial court’s orders denying the Mother’s motion to withdraw her consent and adjudicating I.D.M. dependent.
Reversed and remanded.
FULMER and GREEN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of B.G. and B.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 884 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…whom committed, and facts upon which the findings are based. Fla. R. Juv. P. 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 re I.D.M. 779 So. 2d 526, 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reversing the adjudication of dependency after finding that it was incumbent upon the trial court to question the mother as to whether she understood the nature of the allegations against her or the possible consequences of…
-
Dep't OF Child. & Families v. P.C., 912 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…ommitted, and facts on which the findings are based.” See S.D. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 644 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); C.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families; 777 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); I.D.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 779 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); McKenzie v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 663 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); S.H. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 642 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. ERVIN, BARFIELD and V…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of S.H. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 642 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- In the Interest of C.M., 632 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Bailey v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 703 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)