I. 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.
I.U. (the Mother) appeals a dependency adjudication and disposition order that terminated the trial court's jurisdiction and the Department of Children and Families' protective supervision. The Mother argues she received no notice of the hearing and that the trial court lacked statutory authority to terminate jurisdiction. The court reverses the termination of supervision and jurisdiction while affirming other aspects of the order.
The trial court lacked statutory authority to terminate protective supervision and jurisdiction under the facts presented. The order terminating supervision and jurisdiction is reversed and remanded for further proceedings, though other aspects of the dependency adjudication and disposition order are affirmed.
[1] Failure to provide notice to a parent that the Department's motion to terminate protective supervision will be heard and ruled upon at a judicial review hearing constitut…
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 intelligenceThe trial court entered an order of dependency adjudication and disposition following a dependency disposition hearing. The order terminated the trial…
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 Termination Of Protective Supervision cases and more on FLexlaw
Thomasina Moore and Laura J. Lee, Tallahassee; and Margaret D. Mathews of Akerman, LLP, Tampa, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.
LaROSE, Chief Judge.
I.U. (the Mother) appeals an "Order of Dependency Adjudication and Disposition with Findings as to the Mother, [I.U.], and Order Accepting Case Plan, and Termination of Protective Supervision and Jurisdiction." The trial court entered the order after a dependency disposition hearing. Among other things, the order terminated the trial court's jurisdiction and the Department of Children and Families' protective supervision.
The Mother asserts that she received no notice for the hearing; thus, she contends, the trial court erred by terminating protective supervision and jurisdiction.
The Mother relies on K.M. v. Department of Children & Families, 201 So. 3d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). There we reversed the trial court's order terminating protective supervision and the court's jurisdiction after a judicial review hearing because the parent had received no notice that the Department's motion would be heard and ruled upon at that hearing. Id. at 1242.
The Mother also asserts that the trial court lacked statutory authority to terminate its jurisdiction under the facts of the case. The Department and the Guardian ad Litem Program properly concede error on this point. They have expressly declined to address the Mother's first argument about notice. Accordingly, we reverse the order to the extent that it terminates supervision and jurisdiction, and we remand for further proceedings. In all other respects, we affirm the order. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
VILLANTI and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of D.O. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 201 So. 3d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)