M.P., THE MOTHER, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, ET AL., 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.
A mother appealed the trial court's denial of her motion to set aside a final judgment terminating her parental rights after she failed to attend the adjudicatory hearing. The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because the mother failed to establish a meritorious defense to the termination petition.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying M.P.'s motion to set aside and vacate the final judgment because M.P. failed to establish a meritorious defense to the termination petition, specifically as to the allegation that the children had been in care for 12 of the last 22 months and the mother had not substantially complied with the case plan to permit reunification.
[1] A trial court's order denying a motion to set aside a final judgment of termination of parental rights is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
[2] A motion to set aside a final judgment of termination of parental rights must establish due diligence, demonstrate excusable neglect, and demonstrate the existence of a m…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A motion to set aside a final judgment of termination of parental rights must establish "due diligence, demonstrate excusable neglect, and demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense to the termination petition."”
Establishes the three-part test required to set aside a termination judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM.P. failed to attend the adjudicatory hearing on the Department of Children and Families' petition to terminate her parental rights. As a result, 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 Meritorious Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
M.P., ..the mother, appeals the .trial court’s Order Denying the Motion to Set *513Aside and Vacate the Final Judgment of Termination of Parental Rights, entered after M.P.’s failure to attend the adjudicatory hearing on the petition.'We affirm the trial court’s denial, finding no abuse of discretion.
After M.P.’s failure to attend the adjudicatory hearing, the trial court entered an implied consent to termination, pursuant to section 39.801(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (2016), and proceeded to receive evidence that supported the termination of M.P.’s parental rights, as alleged in the Department of Children and Families’ petition. Thereafter, the trial court entered a final judgment terminating M.P,’s parental rights as to her two minor children. M.P. moved to vacate the default/implied consent judgment, which the trial court denied because M.P. failed to prove a meritorious defense to section 39.806(l)(e)3, Fla. Stat, (2016).
We review the trial court’s order denying M.P.’s Motion to Set Aside and Vacate the Final Judgment of Termination of Parental Rights under an abuse of discretion standard. C.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 990 So.2d 520, 522-523 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). A motion to set aside a final judgment of termination of parental rights must establish “due diligence, demonstrate excusable neglect, and demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense to the termination petition.” Fla. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. P.E., 14 So.3d 228, 236 (Fla. 2009), citing to In re A.N.D. 883 So.2d 910, 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) and E.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 878 So.2d 493, 496 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).
After the hearing on the motion, the trial court found that M.P. failed to establish a meritorious defense as to Paragraph 20 of the Petition for Termination of Parental Rights, which alleged that the children “have been in care for any .12 of the last 22 months and the Mother has not substantially complied with the ease plan so as to permit reunification.” See § 39.806(l)(e)(3), Fla. Stat. (2016). Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the motion. Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination of M.P.’s motion, we affirm the order denying M.P.’s Motion to Set Aside and Vacate the Final Judgment of Termination of Parental Rights.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
F.E.O. v. Dep't of Child. & Families (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs. v. P.E., 14 So. 3d 228 (Fla. 2009)
- In the Interest of A.N.D. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 883 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- E.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 878 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- In the Interest of J.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 990 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)