H.E., THE FATHER
v.
DEPARTMENT 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.
Protective supervision may be terminated when the child has been reunified with a parent and the other parent has failed to comply with case plan requirements despite adequate opportunity, and the trial court does not abuse its discretion in changing a child's legal name back to the name by which the child is actually known and recognized.
[1] An appeal from an order terminating protective supervision may be treated as a petition for writ of certiorari.
[2] A trial court does not depart from the essential requirements of law or cause irreparable harm when terminating protective supervision where a child has been reunified wi…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 trial court properly terminated protective supervision because the child had been reunified with the mother, and the father had not complied with his case plan tasks despite being given ample opportunity to do so.”
Court's rationale for affirming termination of protective supervision.
H.E., a father, was ordered to comply with case plan tasks in a dependency matter. The child had been reunified with the mother, and the trial court l…
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
Appeal from the Circuit Court and petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Yael Gamm, Judge; L.T. Case No. 17-005038CJDP.
H.E., the father, Birmingham, Alabama, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carolyn Schwarz, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee/respondent Department of Children and Families.
Beth Kathryn Roland of Defending Best Interest Project, Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Orlando, and Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for appellee/respondent Guardian ad Litem Program on behalf of H.E., the child. PER CURIAM.
H.E., the father, challenges an order terminating protective supervision and an order changing the child’s first name back to the child’s original birth name. We treat the appeal from the order terminating protective supervision as a petition for writ of certiorari and deny the petition. See M.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 189 So. 3d 134, 139-40 (Fla. 2016). The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law or cause any irreparable harm. See S.M. v. R.M., 82 So. 3d 163, 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). The trial court properly terminated protective supervision because the child had been reunified with the mother, and the father had
2
not complied with his case plan tasks despite being given ample opportunity to do so. § 39.521(1)(c)(3), Fla. Stat. (2020).
We further find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in changing the child’s first name back to his original birth name. See Coolidge v. Ulbrich, 733 So. 2d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The undisputed evidence showed that everyone refers to the child by his birth name, and the child responds only to his birth name, not his legal name. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding it was in the child’s best interest to change the child’s first name to his original birth name, the only name the child has ever known.
Affirmed in part; denied in part. LEVINE, C.J., GROSS and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- M.M. v. Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 189 So. 3d 134 (Fla. 2016)
- Coolidge v. Ulbrich, 733 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- S.M. v. R.M., 82 So. 3d 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)