THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, APPELLANT,
v.
N.M., THE MOTHER, AND E.J., THE FATHER, 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 reversed a $500 contempt fine against the Department of Children and Families for failing to timely file a case plan because the trial court failed to follow required contempt procedures and did not allow the Department to present evidence regarding willfulness or intent.
A trial court must follow the procedures in Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure 8.285(b) or 8.286 before finding a party in contempt, and must give the party a reasonable opportunity to respond.
[1] A trial court must comply with Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure 8.285(b) for criminal contempt or 8.286 for civil contempt and must provide the accused party a reasona…
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 intelligenceThe Department of Children and Families failed to file a case plan seventy-two hours in advance of a reunification hearing. The trial court fined the …
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 Willfulness Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
The Department of Children and Families (“Department”) appeals from an order fining the Department five hundred ($500.00) for failing to timely file a case plan seventy-two (72) hours in advance of a reunification hearing. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R, App. P. 9.146.
The trial court held' the Department in contempt without the lower court following the' procedures laid out in the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure for either a criminal or civil contempt proceeding.1 The Department argues that the court deprived the Department of the opportunity to present evidence to show the late filing was neither willful nor done with the intent to hinder the administration of justice. It is unclear from the record before us whether the trial court imposed the $500 penalty against the Department as a criminal or civil contempt fine. In either event, we agree that the finding of contempt without giving the Department a reasonable opportunity to respond was unwarranted. We thus reverse and remand with instruction to vacate the May 18, 2015 order imposing the fine.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Radosevich v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 245 So. 3d 877 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
-
Orth v. Marcy Orth (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)