T.H., THE FATHER, 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 Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a termination of parental rights (TPR) order but without prejudice to allow the father to seek collateral relief based on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court recognized constitutional protections surrounding the right to counsel in TPR proceedings while leaving open the possibility of post-conviction relief.
The court affirmed the termination of parental rights order but did so without prejudice to allow T.H. to file a motion or petition seeking collateral relief for ineffective assistance of counsel. The court recognized that a constitutional right to counsel exists in TPR proceedings and that effective counsel is required, but indicated the claim may not have been properly raised on direct appeal.
[1] A constitutional right to counsel exists in proceedings that can result in the permanent loss of parental custody.
[2] The right to counsel in termination of parental rights proceedings is based on the constitutionally protected interest in preserving the family and raising one's children…
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 constitutional right to counsel necessarily arises where the proceedings can result in permanent loss of parental custody”
Establishes the constitutional foundation for the right to counsel in TPR proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceT.H. was a father whose parental rights were terminated in a proceeding below. He was represented by appointed counsel. On appeal, T.H. raised a claim…
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 Collateral Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the final order of termination of parental rights, but do so without prejudice for T.H. to file a motion or petition with the court below, seeking collateral relief on his claim (raised in this appeal) that his appointed counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance. This is neither a comment on the relative merits of such a claim, nor even an explicit recognition that T.H. has a right to seek such relief. But see In re D.B., 385 So.2d 83, 87 (Fla.1980) (holding “a constitutional right to counsel necessarily arises where the proceedings can result in permanent loss of parental custody”); S.B. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 851 So.2d 689, 692 (Fla.2003) (explaining the right to counsel in TPR proceedings is “based on the recognition that there is a constitutionally protected interest in preserving the family and raising one’s children”); E.T. v. State, Dept, of Children & Families, 930 So.2d 721, 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (recognizing “a constitutional right to counsel means effective counsel; otherwise, the right is meaningless”).1
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of D. B. and D. S., 385 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1980)
- S.B. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 851 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 2003)
- White v. State, 930 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)