E.T., PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 determined the case was moot because the children had been adopted, and therefore exercised its discretion to discharge jurisdiction.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal certified two questions of great public importance regarding ineffective assistance of counsel in parental rights …
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 Certified Question Of Great Public Importance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We initially accepted jurisdiction to review the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in E.T. v. State, 930 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). The district court ruled upon the following question, which the court certified to be of great public importance:
(1) DOES FLORIDA RECOGNIZE A CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ARISING FROM A LAWYER’S REPRESENTATION OF A PARENT(S) IN A PROCEEDING FOR THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS?
(2) IF SO, WHAT PROCEDURE MUST BE FOLLOWED TO PURSUE A CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL?
Id. at 729. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Upon further consideration, we have now determined that because the children have been adopted the case is moot. Because the case is moot, we exercise our discretion and discharge jurisdiction. The issue of ineffective assistance of counsel claims in termination of parental rights cases will be referred to the Juvenile Court Rules Committee and the Appellate Court Rules Committee for consideration of a rule to address such claims. Accordingly, this review proceeding is hereby dismissed.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ.,'concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Renoit Saintelien v. State, 990 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2008)…committee to suggest changes to the rule, or change the rule itself. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(d) (permitting changes in court rules on an emergency basis), 2.140(f) (providing for requests for consideration by rules committees); E.T. v. State, 957 So. 2d 559, 559-60 (Fla.2007) (discharging jurisdiction as moot, but noting that the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel claims in termination cases would be referred to rules committees); State v. Hickson, 630 So. 2d 172, 176 n. 10 (Fla.1993) (adopting…
-
J.B. v. Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 170 So. 3d 780 (Fla. 2015)…5th DCA 2008) (employing Strickland regarding ineffective assistance of counsel claim in dependency case in which TPR was possible because of criminal charges and certifying same questions as E.T.). Although we dismissed the review in E.T. v. State, 957 So. 2d 559, 559-60 (Fla.2007), we referred the “issue of ineffective assistance of counsel claims in termination of parental rights cases” to two court rules committees. The committees, however, declined to address the issue absent a clear recognition by this…
-
L.H. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 995 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…gs and the standard to be utilized remains unresolved. The Florida Supreme Court referred this issue to the Juvenile Court Rules Committee and the Appellate Court Rules Committee for consideration of a rule to address such claims. See E.T. v. State, 957 So. 2d 559 (Fla.2007). To date, the Rules Committees have not generated a proposed rule for consideration by the Florida Supreme Court. Because Florida law provides no specific mechanism for challenging the effectiveness of counsel in a termination case, a pa…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- White v. State, 930 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)