DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, APPELLANT,
v.
D.T. AND T.T., PARENTS OF T.T., A CHILD, APPELLEES
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 lower court erred in its procedure for imposing sanctions and in sanctioning the wrong parties, and exceeded its authority in directing fines to a private entity.
The Department of Children and Families appealed an order awarding attorney's fees and imposing sanctions, including community service or a fine, on t…
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 Contempt Power cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
The Department of Children and Families appeals an “Order on Parents’ Motion for Sanctions,” which awarded attorney’s fees and required “Representatives of the Department, not the Attorneys or their staff’ to perform 1000 hours community service or pay a $1,000 fine to the Family Visitation Center in Ocala, Florida. We reverse.
Because the lower court was proceeding under its contempt power to punish the Department for violating a court order, it should have followed the procedure required by Rule 8.285(b), Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure (2001). The court failed to issue an order to show cause as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.285(b)(1). See Acevedo v. Dept, of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 668 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
Additionally, although we agree that the Department violated the court’s order to file and serve the predisposition report no later than five days before the hearing, the court sanctioned the wrong parties. It is clear from the record that the Department attorneys were responsible for filing and serving the report on time but failed to do so. However, the court’s order specifically exempts the Department attorneys from paying the fine or performing the community service.
Finally, we find that the lower court exceeded its inherent authority in ordering the fines to be made payable to the Family Visitation Center. See Tibero v. State, 646 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
REVERSED.
PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. J.B., 898 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…n making appropriate findings. See, e.g., Bitterman v. Bitterman, 714 So. 2d 356, 365 (Fla.1998). A court may award attorney’s fees as a sanction for civil contempt as long as proper procedure is followed. See Dep’t of Children and Families v. D.T., 808 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Lamb v. Fowler, 574 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). A court may also award attorney’s fees conditioned upon the granting of a continuance. See Dep’t of Children and Families v. M.G., 838 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). We cautio…
Authorities Cited
- Tibero v. State, 646 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Goshay v. State, 646 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Sixto Acevedo, Sr. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 668 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)