MATTHEW T. ANDERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
TERESA M. CLARK F/K/A TERESA M. ANDERSON, 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.
Matthew Anderson appealed a final judgment terminating his parental rights in a stepparent adoption proceeding, arguing he was entitled to appointed counsel as an indigent, non-consenting parent. The First District affirmed the adoption judgment, distinguishing the case from precedent because Anderson had secured counsel at various points in the proceedings.
The appellate court affirmed the adoption judgment without addressing whether appointed counsel should be provided to indigent, non-consenting parents in contested adoptions, because Anderson had secured counsel at multiple stages of the proceedings.
[1] A parent's right to appointed counsel in a contested adoption proceeding is contingent upon a determination of indigency.
[2] A parent's prior retention of counsel for unrelated matters does not preclude a finding of indigency for the purpose of appointing counsel in a contested adoption proceed…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in failing to determine if appellant was indigent and therefore, entitled to appointment of counsel pursuant to O.A.H. v. R.L.A., 712 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).”
Establishes the single issue on appeal regarding entitlement to appointed counsel.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMatthew Anderson was the biological father of children whose mother remarried. The stepparent initiated an adoption proceeding. Anderson challenged th…
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 Adoption cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Matthew T. Anderson, appeals a Final Judgment of Adoption by Stepparent which found that he abandoned his biological children and which terminated his parental rights. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in failing to determine if appellant was indigent and therefore, entitled to appointment of counsel pursuant to O.A.H. v. R.L.A., 712 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Appellant requests that this court hold, as the Second District did in O.A.H., that counsel should be appointed to represent a non-consenting parent in a contested adoption proceeding when that parent is indigent and the termination of rights is involuntary.
We need not address whether we would follow the Second District’s opinion in O.A.H. or apply its rationale to this case because the facts of this case are distinguishable. In O.A.H., the biological father was indigent, requested appointed counsel, and could not attend the adoption hearing because he was incarcerated. 712 So. 2d at 5. After analyzing whether a contested adoption proceeding under chapter 63 involved state action so as to give rise to due process concerns, the Second District held that O.A.H., the biological father, was entitled to appointed counsel to represent his interests. Id. at 5-7.
The record in the instant case, however, establishes that appellant secured counsel at different points in the proceedings below, i.e., to initiate visitation rights and modify his child support obligation under the dissolution of marriage judgment; to challenge the adoption proceeding before the final hearing; to challenge the judgment of adoption; and to proceed with this appeal. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of adoption.
ERVIN, BOOTH and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T.F. v. N.M., 129 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…tion, T.F. asserted that he was indigent, and, for that reason, the trial court denied him due process by failing to appoint counsel to represent him at the final hearing. Finding the circumstances of this case similar to those in Anderson v. Clark, 826 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), where we held the father in a contested adoption proceeding was not entitled to appointed counsel, we affirm the order denying T.F.’s habeas corpus petition. The instant proceedings began in October 2009, when T.F. filed a pro…
Authorities Cited
- O.A.H. v. R.L.A. and E.P.A., 712 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)