K.A., THE MOTHER, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 2017-04-26
No. 3D16-2739
Before ROTHENBERG, LAGOA and EMAS, JJ.
217 So. 3d 231 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2017)

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.


Holding

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting the appellant from presenting an unlisted witness at the termination of parental rights hearing.


Facts & Procedural History

During an adjudicatory hearing for termination of parental rights, the appellant attempted to call a witness who had not been listed on the witness li…

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.


Opinion of the Court
EMAS, J.

EMAS, J.

On the second day of the adjudicatory hearing on a petition for termination of parental rights, appellant sought to call a witness to testify. However, appellant never listed this witness as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.245(b)(2)(A) and (b)(3). Further, appellee was unaware of the existence of this witness or appellant’s intent to call this witness at the hearing. Appellee had never spoken with or had an opportunity to depose this witness or to prepare for the proffered testimony.

Appellee objected and asserted that this witness, and the proffered testimony, came as a complete surprise and caused prejudice, as the adjudicatory hearing had already been proceeding for two days, and appellee had no way of anticipating or preparing for this proffered evidence.1 The trial court agreed with appellee and, in the exercise of its discretion, prohibited appellant from presenting this witness at the hearing. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination and ruling. See S.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 784 So.2d 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw