D.A., THE MOTHER, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, AND B.C., V.A., A.A., D.A., L.A., AND E.A., 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed that a judge's authority to order the Department of Children and Families to file a termination petition and subsequently preside over the termination trial does not violate due process or the right to a fair and impartial judge.
A judge does not violate a parent's due process rights or right to a fair and impartial judge by both ordering the filing of a termination petition and presiding over the termination trial.
[1] A judge does not violate due process or the right to a fair and impartial judge by ordering the filing of a termination of parental rights petition and subsequently presi…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“To hold that [the Department] alone could initiate termination proceedings would be to permit the [Department] to restrict and frustrate the inherent and statutory authority of the court to protect the welfare of minor children.”
The court cited J.R.T. for the proposition that courts have inherent authority to order filing of termination petitions.
A mother challenged the constitutionality of the procedure whereby the same judge who ordered the Department of Children and Families to file a petiti…
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 Judicial Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
The mother argues that her rights to due process and to a hearing by a fair and impartial judge were violated when the judge who ordered the Department of Children and Families to file a petition for termination of parental rights was the same judge who heard the termination trial and decided the termination petition. We conclude that the appellant’s right to due process and to a fair and impartial judge were not violated through this procedure. Cf. In the Interest of J.R.T., 427 So.2d 251, 252-53 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (a court has the authority to order the filing of a petition for termination of parental rights; “To hold that [the Department] alone could initiate termination proceedings would be to permit the [Department] to restrict and frustrate the inherent and statutory authority of the court to protect the welfare of minor children.”); Lisa K. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 230 Ariz. 173, 281 P.3d 1041, 1046-48 (2012) (permitting a judge both to direct the filing of a motion to terminate a mother’s parental rights and to preside over the termination hearing is not the equivalent of permitting a judge to order a criminal trial and also to preside over the trial, essentially permitting the judge to act as both prosecutor and trier of fact, where many procedural protections exist to ensure that termination is not a foregone conclusion once the judge directs the filing of a motion to terminate).
Affirmed.
DAMOORGIAN, C.J., and LEVINE, J., concur.