R.E.B.
v.
DEP'T OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES
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 appellate court reversed a trial court's termination of parental rights, finding that the father's due process rights were violated when he was excluded from a hearing on the manifest best interest of his children. The court emphasized the importance of the parent-child relationship and the need for punctilious regard for parental due process rights.
Yes, the trial court violated the appellant father's procedural due process rights by excluding him from the manifest best interest hearing. The father had a due process right to be present for this portion of the proceedings.
[1] A trial court must determine the manifest best interest of a child before terminating parental rights.
[2] Grounds for termination of parental rights must be proven before a court considers the child's manifest best interest.
Previewing 2 of 5 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.”
Establishes the high importance of the parent-child relationship and the need for strict adherence to due process rights in termination cases.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court held two hearings concerning the termination of the appellant father's parental rights. The first hearing addressed statutory grounds …
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 Future Advances Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
R.E.B., JR., FATHER OF T.S.B., T.J.B., T.A.B., J.D.B., J.D.B., I.L.B., R.E.B., AND J.L.B., CHILDREN Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D18-588 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed April 27, 2018 On Appeal from the Circuit Court, for Brevard County, Charles G. Crawford, Judge.
Ryan Thomas Truskoski, of Ryan Thomas Truskoski, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.
Kelley Schaeffer, Appellate Counsel, Children's Legal Services, Bradenton, for Appellee.
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)