L.H., PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, RESPONDENT
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.
L.H. seeks certiorari review of a trial court's order requiring the Department of Corrections to keep him incarcerated in Miami-Dade County to secure his appearance at a dependency proceeding terminating his parental rights. The appellate court granted the petition, finding the order departed from essential requirements of law and caused irreparable harm.
The court held that the trial court's order departs from the essential requirements of law because Florida Statutes section 39.808 does not require a parent's presence at either the advisory hearing or trial, and the order causes irreparable harm to the father by preventing him from earning incentive gain time during his detention in Miami-Dade County.
[1] A trial court order directing the Department of Corrections to keep a parent incarcerated in a specific county to secure their appearance at an advisory hearing and trial…
[2] A parent's involuntary incarceration in a county other than their designated correctional institution, which prevents them from earning incentive gain time, causes irrepa…
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“Section 39.808, Florida Statutes (2005), which governs advisory hearing proceedings, does not require the presence of a parent at either the advisory hearing or trial.”
Establishes that the trial court's order requiring the father's presence was contrary to statutory requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceL.H. is the father of a three-year-old child determined dependent because the father is incarcerated at Apalachee Correctional Institution with a poss…
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 Incentive Gain Time cases and more on FLexlaw
RAMIREZ, J.
Petitioner L.H. seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order in which the court directed the Department of Corrections to keep him incarcerated in Miami-Dade County to secure his appearance at his upcoming advisory hearing and trial on the Department of Children and Family Services’ petition for termination of parental rights. We grant the petition, finding that the court’s order departs from the essential requirements of the law which will cause the petitioner irreparable harm.
L.H. is the father of a three-year old child determined dependent as to the father because the father is incarcerated at Apalachee Correctional Institution. The father has a possible early release date of August 20, 2007. He is currently incarcerated in Miami-Dade County since his attendance at a hearing held on October 17, 2006 after which the trial court entered the order now under review. The father does not receive incentive gain time for the time served in Miami-Dade County. The advisory hearing on the department’s petition is set to occur on November 29, 2006. The trial date has not yet been set.
Section 39.808, Florida Statutes (2005), which governs advisory hearing proceedings, does not require the presence of a parent at either the advisory hearing or trial. In its response to the petition, the department only states that it agrees that permanency will be achieved at the same pace, regardless of where the father is located. We could find no adequate ground in support of the trial court’s decision, and therefore conclude that the order under review departs from the essential requirements of the law. See Belair v. Drew, 770 So. 2d 1164 (Fla.2000). Furthermore, enforcement of the court’s order, at the very least, causes irreparable harm to the father. The father cannot receive incentive gain time for the time held in Miami-Dade County, and this effectively adds more time to the time during which the father cannot be reunited with his son upon the father’s release from prison.
We therefore grant the petition, and quash the order under review. This opinion shall take effect immediately notwithstanding the filing of any motions for rehearing.
Petition granted.