IN THE INTEREST OF D. D. W., J. R. W., G. G. W., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 court held that indigent parents have a constitutional right to counsel in dependency hearings where permanent loss of custody is possible, reversing the trial court's denial of counsel.
Appellants, indigent parents, had their parental custody rights terminated and children permanently committed. They moved for appointment of counsel, …
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 Constitutional Right To Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1311] PER CURIAM.
Appellants, the parents of D.D.W., J.R.W. and G.G.W., appeal the trial court’s termination of their parental custody rights and permanent commitment of the children to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. They argue the trial court erred in failing to grant their motion for appointment of counsel since they are indigent. We agree and reverse.
The Florida Supreme Court in In Interest of D.B., 385 So. 2d 83 (Fla.1980), held indigent parents have a constitutional right to counsel in dependency hearings where the proceedings can result in permanent loss of parental custody. However, the United States Supreme Court recently held that the Constitution does not require the appointment of counsel for indigent parents in every parental status termination proceeding. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham County, N.C., - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981).
Although we acknowledge the Florida Constitution may provide greater guarantees than does the United States Constitution, a reading of In Interest of D.B., supra, does not reveal whether the Florida Constitution provides greater guarantees for the right to counsel in dependency cases. Nevertheless, on the authority of In Interest of D.B., supra, we reverse and remand.
However, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v), we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court to be of great public importance:
Does the Florida Constitution require the appointment of counsel to indigent parents in every parental status termination proceeding?
McCORD, BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lassiter v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of Durham Cnty., 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981)
- In the Interest of D. B. and D. S., 385 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1980)