IN THE INTEREST OF A.W.P., JR., A MINOR CHILD. A.W.P., SR., APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Florida appellate court reversed and remanded a dependency case because the trial court failed to inform the father of his right to counsel at each stage of the proceedings, a violation of statutory rights.
A trial court's failure to inform a parent of his right to counsel at each stage of dependency proceedings violates the parent's statutory rights and requires reversal and remand for a new hearing.
[1] A trial court must inform a parent of his right to counsel at each stage of dependency proceedings under section 39.013(9)(a), Florida Statutes, and failure to do so viol…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA.W.P., Sr. challenged a circuit court order granting long-term non-relative placement of his son, terminating protective supervision, and approving 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 Right To Counsel In Dependency Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
A.W.P., Sr., challenges the circuit court’s order granting the Department of Children and Families’ motion for long-term non-relative placement of his son, A.W.P., Jr., termination of active protective supervision, and approval of case plan. A.W.P., Sr ., particularly challenges the portion of the order that prevents him from having any visitation or telephone contact with A.W.P., Jr. The Department correctly concedes that A.W.P., Sr.’s rights were violated by the trial court’s failure to inform him of his right to counsel at each stage of the proceedings. § 39.013(9)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997); In re Interest of D.M., 750 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); In re Interest of S.N.D., 605 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Furthermore, the Department correctly concedes that A.W.P., Sr., did not waive his right, pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.320(b)(2), to have counsel present at the hearings during which the court terminated protective services, changed the goal to long-term non-relative placement, and ordered that A.W.P., Sr., would have no visitation or telephone contact with his son.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new hearing on the Department’s motion.
NORTHCUTT, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, MONTEREY, (Senior) J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of S.N.D. and J.D. v. State, 605 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- In the Interest of D.M. C.M. v. State, 750 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)