J.H., MOTHER OF H.H., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
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 court held that the mother was denied procedural due process when the trial court conducted a disposition hearing without notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The mother of a minor child appeals orders from a juvenile dependency case. The trial court conducted a disposition hearing at what was supposed to be…
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 Home Study cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
J.H., mother of H.H., minor child, appeals from orders entered in a juvenile dependency case dismissing the action and placing the child with the father. Two points on appeal are presented, the first of which is dispositive. The mother argues she was denied procedural due process when the court conducted a disposition hearing at what was supposed to be the arraignment without affording her notice and an opportunity to be heard.
DCF concedes that the mother’s procedural due process rights were violated when the trial court, without notice to the mother, treated the arraignment hearing as a disposition hearing. DCF acknowledges that while the mother had filed a written consent to the petition for dependency, she was still entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard as to the dispo-sitional aspect of the cause. See § 39.521(1), Fla. Stat. (disposition hearing shall be conducted if parents have consented to the finding of dependency or admitted the allegations in the petition). See generally Bembry v. Department of Children and Family Services, 716 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (reversing, dependency disposition order due to lack of notice of hearing).
DCF additionally observes that the trial court failed to follow Chapter 39, Florida Statutes, when it granted permanent custody of the child to the father without (1) preparation of a predisposition report or written case plan, section 39.521(l)(a), Florida Statutes, and (2) a home study by the department, section 39.521(2)(r), Florida Statutes.
The order at arraignment and order dismissing the action (each dated May 4, 2004)'are reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with Chapter 39. The mother’s additional point, that the order placing the child with the father violated -the terms of her written consent to dependency which had as its goal, reunification of mother and child, may be raised and considered on remand.
. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Child. & Families v. In the Interest of L. R., 914 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…he had signed a written consent to the petition for dependency, the child’s mother was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard with regard to all proceedings regarding the dependency of her child. J.H. v. Department of Children & Families, 890 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); C.L.R. v. Department of Children & Families, 913 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). This includes entitlement to notice and opportunity to attend the mediation conference involving the father of the child. Because the mother did no…
-
R.J. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 906 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…udge. While a trial judge must obviously consider the best interests of a child at all stages, in this ease the procedures employed to achieve that result operated to deny the mother essential due process. See J.H. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 890 So. 2d 476, 477 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (finding mother’s procedural due process rights were violated where trial court, without notice to mother, treated arraignment hearing as disposition hearing). We vacate the successor judge’s order and remand for consistent…
-
L. B. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 914 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…he had signed a written consent to the petition for dependency, the child’s mother was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard with regard to all proceedings regarding the dependency of her child. J.H. v. Department of Children & Families, 890 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); C.L.R. v. Department of Children & Families, 913 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). This includes entitlement to notice and opportunity to attend the mediation conference involving the father of the child. Because the mother did no…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bembry v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 716 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Slagle v. State, 716 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)