F.E.O., THE MOTHER
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, ET AL.
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's failure to appear at an adjudicatory hearing for termination of parental rights, after being properly ordered to appear with notice of date, time, and location, constitutes consent to termination under Fla. Stat. § 39.801(3)(e).
[1] A parent's failure to appear at an adjudicatory hearing for termination of parental rights after being ordered to appear with notice of the date, time, and location const…
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“If a parent appears for the advisory hearing and the court orders that parent to appear at the adjudicatory hearing for the petition for termination of parental rights, stating the date, time, and location of the hearing and, if applicable, instructions for appearance through audio-video communication technology, then failure of that parent to appear, either physically or, by agreement of the parties or at the discretion of the court, through audio-video communication technology, at the adjudicatory hearing constitutes consent for termination of parental rights.”
Fla. Stat. § 39.801(3)(e) (2024), cited as the statutory basis for the outcome
F.E.O., the mother, appeared at an advisory hearing and was ordered by the trial court to appear at the adjudicatory hearing for a petition to termina…
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 Petition For Termination Of Parental Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed April 2, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-1609 Lower Tribunal No. D22-15623 ________________
F.E.O., the Mother, Appellant,
vs.
Department of Children and Families, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Michelle Alvarez Barakat, Judge.
F.E.O., the Mother, in proper person.
Karla Perkins, for appellee Department of Children and Families; Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Laura J. Lee, Assistant Director of Appeals (Tallahassee), for appellee Guardian ad Litem.
Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and SCALES, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See § 39.801(3)(e), Fla. Stat. (2024) (“If a parent appears for the advisory hearing and the court orders that parent to appear at the adjudicatory hearing for the petition for termination of parental rights, stating the date, time, and location of the hearing and, if applicable, instructions for appearance through audio-video communication technology, then failure of that parent to appear, either physically or, by agreement of the parties or at the discretion of the court, through audio-video communication technology, at the adjudicatory hearing constitutes consent for termination of parental rights.”); M.P. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 230 So. 3d 512, 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“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.”); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980) (observing that the “abuse of discretion” standard of review is highly deferential: “Discretion, in this sense, is abused when the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only where no reasonable [person] would take the view adopted by the trial court. If reasonable [people] could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion.”) (modernized) (citation omitted); see also E.S. v. Dep’t of Children and Family, 878 So. 2d 493, 496 (Fla. 3d DCA
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- E.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 878 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- M.P. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 230 So. 3d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)