A.W., 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 court affirmed the trial court's determination that no fraud or duress was used to obtain parental rights surrender, and held that parents are not entitled to appointed counsel for post-termination ineffective assistance claims.
Competent substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that no fraud or duress was used to obtain the parents' surrender of parental rights, and parents are not entitled to appointed counsel for post-termination ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
[1] Parents seeking to set aside consent to termination of parental rights bear the burden of proving fraud or duress.
[2] Parents do not have the right to appointed counsel in post-termination proceedings in which they claim ineffective assistance of counsel, although they have such right du…
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 intelligenceParents appealed a trial court decision regarding termination of parental rights and surrender of parental rights for adoption purposes.…
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 Adoption cases and more on FLexlaw
Affirmed. Competent substantial evidence supported the trial court’s determination that no fraud or duress was used to obtain the parents’ surrender of parental rights in order to allow for adoption. See K.C. v. Adoption Servs., Inc., 721 So.2d 811, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that the burden of proof is on the parent seeking to set aside consent to termination of parental rights, and evidence did not establish that the parent was under duress). Appellants were not entitled to appointed counsel for pursuing a post-judgment claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See J.B. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 170 So.3d 780 (Fla.2015) (holding that while.parents have the right to appointed counsel with regard to termination proceedings in both trial and appellate courts, parents do not have, the right to counsel in post-termination proceedings in which the parents are claiming ineffective assistánce of counsel). The Department of Children and Families (“the Department”) satisfied the least restrictive means test through its efforts prior to termination. See S.M. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, No. SC15-2127, 202 So.3d 769,. 2016 WL 6472880 (Fla. Sept. 1, 2016) (finding that the Department satisfies its burden under the least restrictive means prong by making a good faith effort to rehabilitate parent and child prior to filing of termination of parental rights petition; availability of relative placement after court terminates parental rights is not part of least restrictive means test).
WARNER, GROSS and FORST, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- S.M. v. Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 202 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 2016)
- J.B. v. Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 170 So. 3d 780 (Fla. 2015)
- K.C. v. Adoption Servs., Inc., 721 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)