IN THE INTEREST OF C.S., A CHILD. M.D., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, APPELLEES
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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a termination of parental rights order because the trial court failed to appoint counsel for the mother over an extended period and failed to advise her of her right to counsel or obtain a knowing and intelligent waiver of that right.
The trial court's termination of parental rights order is reversed because it violated M.D.'s constitutional right to counsel by failing to appoint counsel for an extended period and by failing to inform M.D. of her right to counsel or establish a knowing and intelligent waiver of that right.
[1] A trial court must appoint counsel for a parent in proceedings for the termination of parental rights.
[2] A trial court must inform a parent of their right to counsel in proceedings for the termination of parental rights.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“in proceedings involving the possibility of permanent termination of parental rights, the right to counsel is fundamental under our federal and state constitutions”
Establishes the constitutional foundation for the right to counsel in parental termination cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM.D., the mother of child C.S., had her parental rights terminated by the trial court. The trial court failed to appoint counsel for M.D. during the e…
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 Termination Of Parental Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
M.D., the mother, appeals an order terminating her parental rights. The Department of Children and Family Services and the Guardian Ad Litem Program concede error. We reverse because the trial court failed to (1) appoint counsel for an extended period of time when termination was at issue and (2) advise M.D. of her right to counsel or to obtain a record waiver of counsel. See, e.g., J.C.-J. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 987 So.2d 828, 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (discussing • due process right to counsel at all appropriate stages in termination of parental rights proceedings and citing sections 39.013(1), 39.402(5)(b)(2), and 39.807(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), requiring trial court to inform parents of their right to counsel and to appoint counsel for parents who are unable to afford counsel); T.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 979 So.2d 1075, 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (explaining that in proceedings involving the possibility of permanent termination of parental rights, the right to counsel is fundamental under our federal and state constitutions); A.C.N. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 814 So.2d 1142, 1143-44 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (same; explaining also that to fulfill the constitutional requirements, the trial court must inform the parent of the right to counsel and, if the parent wishes *116to waive the right, the trial court must establish that the waiver is knowingly and intelligently made); Beveridge v. Mardis, 682 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (reversing due to failure of trial court to obtain a waiver of counsel in parental rights termination case as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.320(b)); S.H. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 642 So.2d 809, 810 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (same).
Reversed and remanded.
ALTENBERND and WHATLEY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.T. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 10 So. 3d 1182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…f adjudication against the Appellant. Because the trial court erred in failing to appoint the mother trial counsel to represent her at trial as required by section 39.013(9)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), see M.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 6 So. 3d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), we vacate the order of adjudication and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded.…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of T.H. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Melinda Barnes, 979 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- In the Interest of S.H. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 642 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- In the Interest of L.N. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 814 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Beveridge v. W.M. Mardis and Margaret M. Mardis, 682 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- In the Interest of C.J. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 987 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)