R.E.B.
v.
DCF
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 parent has a constitutional due process right to be present and participate in the manifest best interest and least restrictive means portion of a termination of parental rights proceeding.
[1] A parent has a constitutional due process right to be present and participate in the manifest best interest and least restrictive means portion of a termination of parent…
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 intelligence“So important is the parent-child relationship that the termination of it may be accomplished by the state only with a punctilious regard for the due process rights of the parent.”
Quoted from E.A. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 894 So. 2d 1049, 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
The trial court held two adjudicatory hearings on November 2 and November 9, 2017. The father and his counsel attended the first hearing on statutory …
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 De Novo Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and David P. Krupski, Appellate Counsel, Sanford, for Guardian ad Litem Program.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals a final judgment terminating his parental rights arguing that his procedural due process rights were violated when the trial court held a manifest best interest hearing in his involuntary absence. We agree and reverse.1
The trial court held two adjudicatory hearings below. The first hearing, on
November 2, 2017, considered only whether there were statutory grounds to terminate
Appellant’s parental rights. The trial court then held a second hearing, on November 9,
2017, addressing whether termination was in the children’s manifest best interest and the least restrictive means to protect the children from harm.
Although Appellant and his counsel were present at the first hearing, the trial court did not allow Appellant to attend the second hearing. “So important is the parent-child relationship that the termination of it may be accomplished by the state only with a punctilious regard for the due process rights of the parent.” E.A. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams.,
894 So. 2d 1049, 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (quoting R.P. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 835
So. 2d 1212, 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982); J.B. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 768 So. 2d 1060, 1064 (Fla. 2000))). In this case, Appellant had a due process right to be present for the manifest best interest and least restrictive means portion of the proceedings. See T.B. v. Dep’t of Child. &
Fams., 222 So. 3d 646, 647 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). We therefore reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to conduct a de novo manifest best interest and least restrictive means hearing and to ensure that Appellant and his counsel have an opportunity to attend and fully participate. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.525(c)-(d).
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
BERGER, LAMBERT, and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982)
- J.B. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 768 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2000)
- R.P. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 835 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- E.A. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 894 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- T.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 222 So. 3d 646 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)