T.S., THE MOTHER, APPELLANT,
v.
GUARDIAN AD LITEM AND DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 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.
In a dependency case, the trial court terminated protective supervision of T.S.'s three children and placed them in custody of their natural fathers. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court abused its discretion by hearing the termination motion at a status hearing without prior notice to the mother, violating her due process rights.
The trial court abused its discretion by terminating protective supervision without providing the mother prior notice that the termination motion would be heard at the status hearing, thereby violating her due process rights.
[1] A termination of protective supervision order is reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by terminating protective supervision without prior notice that the motion would be heard.
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“A termination of protective supervision order is reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard.”
Establishes the standard of review applicable to the trial court's termination order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceT.S. had three children subject to protective supervision in a dependency case. The trial court scheduled a status hearing to receive a therapist's re…
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 Protective Supervision cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal stemming from a dependency case involving T.S.’s three children, T.S. argues that the trial court erred in terminating protective supervision and placing the children in the custody of their respective natural fathers. A termination of protective supervision order is reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard. C.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 988 So.2d 1247, 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). We reverse because the motion to terminate protective supervision was heard at a status hearing, which was scheduled for the purpose of receiving a therapist’s report, and T.S. was not given notice that the motion would be heard at that time. See R.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 948 So.2d 898, 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (noting that it was error and a violation of the mother’s due process rights to terminate protective supervision without prior notice that permanency would be decided). Here, the trial court abused its discretion where the mother objected to termination of protective supervision and there was no prior notice that the Guardian Ad Litem’s pending motion for closure of the case as to the three children would be at issue at the status hearing. The mother was not *342prepared, nor was she required to be prepared, to defend the significant motion to terminate protective supervision, which although filed, had not been noticed for hearing. See Khan v. Dep’t of Rev., 901 So.2d 992, 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“It is an essential part of the concept of due process that any relief granted at a hearing be within the kind of relief sought by the notice given for hearing.”).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
STEVENSON, HAZOURI and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.S. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 75 So. 3d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…ilies and the Guardian Ad Litem properly concede, the trial court erred in terminating protective services at a status hearing for which the Mother was not given notice that termination of services would be considered. See T.S. v. Guardian Ad Litem, 49 So. 3d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). In light of this disposition, we decline to address the merits of the order denying the Mother’s motion for reunification and placing the child with his father at this time. The Mother did not timely seek review of this order,1…
-
In the Interest of D.O. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 201 So. 3d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…ting protective services at a status hearing for which the Mother was not given notice that termination of services would be considered.” J.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 75 So. 3d 808, 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citing T.S. v. Guardian Ad Litem, 49 So. 3d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)). The Department and the Guardian ad Litem conceded error in J.S. Accordingly, we reverse the order terminating supervision and jurisdiction and remand for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded. KELLY and LUCAS, JJ., Conc…
-
N.A. v. Dept. of Child. & Families, 267 So. 3d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- R.H. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 948 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Najeeb Khan v. Dep't OF Revenue, 901 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Cole v. State, 988 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- C.A. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 988 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)