E. U.
v.
DEPT. 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.
A parent is denied effective assistance of counsel when there are unexplained delays in appointing counsel while the request is pending and appointed counsel fails to appear at a critical hearing.
[1] A parent is denied effective assistance of counsel when a request for counsel remains pending while the court enters a consent by nonappearance.
[2] A trial court should resolve a pending request for counsel before entering a consent by nonappearance.
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“the Mother was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The record reflects that the general magistrate declined to rule on the Mother's request for counsel at a judicial review and that the Department of Children and Families misrepresented the nature of the Mother's request for counsel at a subsequent status conference.”
Court's explanation of the basis for reversal
Mother E.U. appealed a trial court judgment terminating her parental rights to her child T.J.T. The general magistrate declined to rule on her request…
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 Manifest Best Interests cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant E.U. (the Mother) appeals the trial court order terminating her parental rights to T.J.T. We reverse the final termination judgment, including the entry of the consent by nonappearance, because the Mother was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The record reflects that the general magistrate declined to rule on the Mother's request for counsel at a judicial review and that the Department of Children and Families misrepresented the nature of the Mother's request for counsel at a subsequent status conference. This unnecessary delay in the appointment of counsel resulted in the trial court entering the Mother's consent by nonappearance while the request for counsel remained pending.1 Furthermore, after counsel was appointed, counsel failed to appear at the manifest best interests hearing. See In re D.B., 385 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1980); M.M. v. K.P., 228 So. 3d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); A.C.N. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 814 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); In re M.D.A., 517 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). The cause is therefore remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA, SLEET, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur. 1While we recognize that trial courts are required by statute to enter a consent when a parent fails to appear for an advisory hearing, see § 39.801(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (2017), we note that the best practice would be to resolve a pending request for counsel prior to entering a consent by nonappearance.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of D. B. and D. S., 385 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1980)
- In the Interest of M.D.A., 517 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- In the Interest of L.N. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 814 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- IN the Interest OF D.P., III v. K.P., 228 So. 3d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)