IN THE INTEREST OF E.S., A CHILD. K.K., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, 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.
K.K. appeals the termination of his parental rights based on a default judgment entered because he arrived twenty minutes late to an adjudicatory hearing. The court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside the default when K.K.'s tardiness was due to transportation difficulties of his disabled relative.
The trial court abused its discretion by refusing to set aside the default and terminate parental rights based on K.K.'s twenty-minute tardiness when justified by transportation difficulties. A default judgment terminating parental rights is not appropriate merely because a parent appears late to a hearing with a valid explanation.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by entering a default judgment terminating parental rights due to a parent's tardiness when the parent offers a reasonable explanation…
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion to set aside a default judgment terminating parental rights when the parent provides a reasonable excuse for their…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“K.K. arrived at the adjudicatory hearing approximately twenty minutes late. K.K's attorney then moved that the trial court set aside the default and hear the case. Counsel explained to the court that K.K. was late because the disabled relative who had provided transportation for K.K. had experienced difficulty finding a handicapped parking space near the courthouse. The trial court denied the motion to set aside the default. In doing so, the trial court abused its discretion.”
Establishes the facts of the case and the court's holding that denying the motion to set aside the default constituted an abuse of discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceK.K. arrived approximately twenty minutes late to an adjudicatory hearing regarding his parental rights to child E.S. His tardiness was caused by diff…
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 Adjudicatory Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
CANADY, Judge.
K.K. appeals an order of the trial court terminating his parental rights. This order was based on a “default” for “failure to appear” at the adjudicatory hearing in his case. K.K. arrived at the adjudicatory hearing approximately twenty minutes late. K.K’s attorney then moved that the trial court set aside the default and hear the case. Counsel explained to the court that K.K. was late because the disabled relative who had provided transportation for K.K. had experienced difficulty finding a handicapped parking space near the courthouse. The trial court denied the motion to set aside the default. In doing so, the trial court abused its discretion.
This is one of a number of cases in which the trial court either adjudicated a child dependent or terminated parental rights due to a parent’s tardiness in appearing for the scheduled hearing. For the reasons this court has previously explained, we reverse the order terminating K.K.’s parental rights and remand for further proceedings. See T.E.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 28 Fla. L. Weekly D2714, — So. 2d -, 2003 WL 22795083 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov. 26, 2003) (reversing order terminating father’s parental rights which was based on a default entered for the father’s tardy appearance at hearing); see also G.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 857 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (reversing order adjudicating child dependent which was based on a default entered for father’s tardy appearance at hearing). “This opinion does not require the trial court to alter custody or current visitation rights, but the trial court must review these issues and make a lawful decision as soon as possible following issuance of our mandate.” T.E.D., 28 Fla. L. Weekly at D2714, — So. 2d at -.
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA and VILLANTI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dayne Miller v. State, 980 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…iew of the probable cause affidavit, we can understand the State's decision not to file such a motion. . The concurring judge also noted that the precedent from this court was consistent with the precedent from his own court, citing Golden v. Crow, 862 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Ho, 929 So. 2d at 1156.…
-
Viet HO v. State, 929 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…the integrity of the judicial process. Precedent emanating from this court, see Nguyen v. State, 925 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), and Griffith v. State, 914 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), and from the Second District Court, see Golden v. Crow, 862 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), holds that it is. It is difficult to determine from the language of rules 3.131 and 3.132, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, whether the Florida Supreme Court intended a motion for pretrial detention to be a necessary prerequ…1 / 2
-
Aqwan Griffith v. State, 914 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…e state failed to file a motion for pretrial detention, we grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus and direct the trial court to conduct a hearing pursuant to Rule 3.131(b)(1) and determine appropriate conditions of release. See Golden v. Crow, 862 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The trial court is directed to hold [*1054] the hearing no later than Tuesday, November 29, 2005.1 PETITION GRANTED. SHARP, W., THOMPSON, and TORPY, JJ., concur. . The state may, of course, file a motion for pretrial dete…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In the Interest of I.A. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 857 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)