FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
v.
M.H., THE MOTHER
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 sanction imposed after a party has already complied with a court order, even if belatedly, constitutes a criminal contempt order that must accord with due process rights rather than a remedial civil contempt order.
[1] A sanction imposed after a party has already complied with an underlying court order, even if compliance was tardy, constitutes a criminal contempt order requiring due pr…
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“a court order imposing a fine was not a civil contempt order because it was not remedial; therefore, it was a criminal contempt order that must accord with the contemnor's rights of due process”
Citation to Shook v. Alter regarding the distinction between civil and criminal contempt sanctions
The trial court issued a July 8, 2022 placement order requiring DCF to move two children from a group home to a safer foster home. DCF complied with t…
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 Remedial Vs. Punitive Sanctions cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed February 8, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-1716 Lower Tribunal No. 12-15727 ________________ Florida Department of Children and Families, Appellant, vs.
M.H., the mother, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Scott M. Bernstein, Judge. Karla Perkins, Appellate Counsel, for appellant. Eugene F. Zenobi, Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Third Region, and Kevin Coyle Colbert, Assistant Regional Counsel, for appellee M.H., the Mother; Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Laura J. Lee, Assistant Director of Appeals (Tallahassee), for appellee Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office. Before LOGUE, SCALES and HENDON, JJ. PER CURIAM. The trial court’s August 17, 2022 “Order Regarding Indirect Civil Contempt” directed the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) to pay a $2,500 sanction to a charity of DCF’s choice for DCF’s purported failure to timely comply with the trial court’s July 8, 2022 placement order. The placement order, requiring DCF to move two children, Z.H. and R.H., from a group home where they were being mistreated by other children to a safer foster home, adjudicated a motion by the Statewide Guardian ad Litem (GAL) seeking such relief.
While no doubt well-intentioned, the trial court’s $2,500 sanction – imposed after DCF had complied, albeit belatedly, with the placement order – nevertheless constituted a procedurally flawed indirect criminal contempt order, and therefore, we are compelled to reverse the contempt order. See Shook v. Alter, 729 So. 2d 527, 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding that a court order imposing a fine was not a civil contempt order because it was not remedial; therefore, it was a criminal contempt order that must accord with the contemnor’s rights of due process); see Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.285(b). 1 Reversed. 1 We acknowledge GAL’s commendable confession of error.
2