IN THE INTEREST OF D.O., A CHILD. K.M., 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 Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed a dependency court's order terminating protective supervision over a minor child because the legal father received no notice that the Department would move to terminate supervision at the judicial review hearing. The Department conceded error, and the court held that all parties in dependency proceedings are entitled to reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The court held that the dependency court erred in terminating supervision without providing the father with proper notice and an opportunity to be heard. K.M. was entitled to reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard in the dependency proceedings as required by Florida Statutes and the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure.
[1] A dependency court errs by terminating protective supervision and jurisdiction without providing the legal father reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard.
[2] Parties in dependency proceedings are entitled to reasonable notice of any hearing, even when the rules do not specifically require notice for a particular event.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“K.M. was entitled to reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard in the dependency proceedings.”
Establishes the fundamental procedural right of parties in dependency cases to receive notice and be heard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe child was sheltered in Florida in 2013 with respect to the mother. The legal father, K.M., resides in Illinois. On June 3, 2016, the father moved …
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 of the dependency court’s order terminating supervision and jurisdiction over the minor child, D.O., the Department of Children and Families appropriately concedes error. More specifically, the Department admits that the legal father, K.M., received no notice that the Department’s motion to terminate protective supervision would be heard and ruled upon at a June 20, 2016, judicial review hearing. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The child was sheltered in Florida as to the mother in 2013. The father resides in Illinois. On June 3, 2016, he moved to modify placement of the child. Apparently, among other things, the father wanted custody of the child during the summer to build a stronger bond with the child. On June 17,2016, beyond the date set by the dependency court to file motions, the Department filed a motion to terminate protective supervision and jurisdiction. At the June 20, 2016, judicial review hearing, the court found that the mother had complied with her case plan and, over the father’s objection, granted the Department’s motion. Any further- issues, the dependency court concluded, could be addressed in the family court division of the circuit court.
The trial court considered the Department’s motion and entered the order terminating supervision without proper notice to the father; consequently, we must reverse and remand for further proceedings. K.M. was entitled to reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard in the dependency proceedings. In C.K. v. Department of Children & Family Services, 88 So.3d 975, 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), this court observed that “[sjection 39.502(1) and (4)-(9), Florida Statutes (2011), requires that parties in dependency proceedings receive notice. Similarly, Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.255(h), applicable to dependency proceedings, provides that ‘[wjhen these rules do not require a *1243specific notice, all parties will be given reasonable notice of any hearing.’ ” More to the point, the First -District has held that “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.” 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., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
I. U. v. Dept. of Child. & Families (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…tive supervision. The Mother asserts that she received no notice for the hearing; thus, she contends, the trial court erred by terminating protective supervision and jurisdiction. The Mother relies on K.M. v. Department of Children & Families, 201 So. 3d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). There we reversed the trial court's order terminating protective supervision and the court's jurisdiction after a judicial review hearing because the parent had received no notice that the Department's motion would be heard a…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of C.K. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 88 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- J.S. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 75 So. 3d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- T.S. v. Guardian AD Litem & Dep't of Child. & Families, 49 So. 3d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)