DEONTA HOWELL
v.
AMY U. HICKMAN
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 Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that a putative father was not entitled to notice of proceedings regarding the termination of parental rights because he failed to timely register with the Florida Putative Fathers Registry. The court emphasized that fraud is not a defense to compliance with statutory requirements and that custody and adoption determinations must prioritize the child's best interests.
No, the putative father was not entitled to notice of the proceedings because he did not timely register with the Florida Putative Fathers Registry. Fraud is not a defense to compliance with the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights or adoption.
[1] A biological father's parental interest may be lost or diminished if he fails to take timely and available legal steps to establish a relationship with his child.
[2] The purpose of the Putative Father Registry is to ensure that unmarried biological fathers act promptly and substantially to establish a relationship with their child, th…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“affirming denial of putative father’s motion to intervene and motion for relief from final judgment of termination of parental rights because putative father was not entitled to notice of proceedings where putative father did not timely register with the Florida Putative Fathers Registry”
Establishes the basis for the appellate court's affirmance of the lower court's denial of the putative father's motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeonta Howell, the appellant, sought to intervene in proceedings concerning the termination of parental rights. He claimed he was the putative father …
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 Motion For Appellate Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
DEONTA HOWELL,
Appellant,
v.
AMY U. HICKMAN,
Appellee.
No. 4D19-520
[June 19, 2019]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Jessica Ticktin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502018DR005241XXXXSB.
Deonta Howell, Jonesboro, GA, pro se. Amy U. Hickman of Hausmann & Hickman, P.A., Boynton Beach, for appellee.
PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See A.A.F. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fam., 211 So. 3d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (affirming denial of putative father’s motion to intervene and motion for relief from final judgment of termination of parental rights because putative father was not entitled to notice of proceedings where putative father did not timely register with the Florida Putative Fathers Registry); § 63.063(2), Fla. Stat. (2018) (“A fraudulent representation is not a defense to compliance with the requirements of this chapter and is not a basis for dismissing a petition for termination of parental rights or a petition for adoption, for vacating an adoption decree, or for granting custody to the offended party. Custody and adoption determinations must be based on the best interests of the child in accordance with s. 61.13.”); § 63.063(3), Fla. Stat. (2018) (“In balancing the rights and interests of the state and of all parties affected by fraud, including the child, the adoptive parents, and the unmarried biological father, the Legislature has determined that the unmarried biological father is in the best position to prevent or ameliorate the effects of fraud and, therefore, has the burden of preventing fraud.”).
2
GERBER, C.J., WARNER and CONNER, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- A.A.F. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families & MR. & MRS. L., 211 So. 3d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)