IN THE INTEREST OF B.C., A CHILD. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, PETITIONER,
v.
HONORABLE J. LEWIS HALL, JR., AS CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services sought review of a circuit court order directing the state to pay attorney's fees for appointed counsel in a termination of parental rights proceeding. The appellate court held that under section 43.28 and Florida Supreme Court precedent, the county—not the state—must bear the cost of such appointed counsel.
The county, not the state, bears the responsibility for paying attorney's fees and costs for appointed counsel in termination of parental rights proceedings. Article VII, section 18 does not change the existing meaning and operation of section 43.28, as the constitutional provision is prospective in operation and does not apply to pre-existing statutory law.
[1] A petition for writ of certiorari may be treated as a notice of appeal and initial brief when reviewing an order awarding attorney's fees.
[2] Under section 43.28, Florida Statutes (1991), counties are responsible for the payment of appointed counsel in proceedings for the termination of parental rights.
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“section 43.28, as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court in In the Interest of D.B., 385 So.2d 83 (Fla.1980), places on the county the burden of payment for appointed counsel in proceedings for the termination of parental rights”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that counties, not the state, must pay for appointed counsel in termination of parental rights cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a proceeding for termination of parental rights, the circuit court awarded attorney's fees to appointed counsel and directed payment by the Departm…
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 Parental Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of an order entered by the circuit court awarding attorney’s fees to appointed counsel to be paid by the state in a proceeding for termination of parental rights. The Department contends the order is in error as it is the county’s responsibility under these circumstances to pay attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 43.28, Florida Statutes (1991).1
Initially, we conclude that this particular issue should be reviewed by plenary appeal, as one from a final order, and not by way of a petition for writ of certiorari. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 9.040(c), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, we treat the instant petition for writ of certiorari as a notice of appeal and as the initial brief. See Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Brooke, 573 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. C.G., 556 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
Turning to the merits, we agree with the Department’s position that section 43.28, as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court in In the Interest of D.B., 385 So. 2d 83 (Fla.1980), places on the county the burden of payment for appointed counsel in proceedings for the termination of parental rights under present section 39.465, Florida Statutes (1991). We also agree with the Department that newly-adopted section 18 of Article VII, Florida Constitution, does not change the meaning and operation of the law or the fundamental relationship between Article V and section 43.28 as explicated in D.B.2 Indeed, the language of section 18 is clearly prospective in operation. For example, subsection (d) exempts “laws reauthorizing but not expanding then-existing statutory authority, laws having insignificant fiscal impact, and laws creating, modifying, or repealing non-criminal infractions.” (Emphasis added) This language unmistakably implies that the operation of section 18(a) is targeted at laws to be passed in the future, after the effective date of the section. As urged by the Department, the only reasonable construction of Article VII, section 18 as a whole is that it is not applicable to existing section 43.28.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the order of the trial court directing that attorney’s fees be paid by the Department is reversed and the cause is remanded so that an order may be entered directing the fees and costs be paid by Franklin County.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SMITH and WOLF, JJ., concur. . Section 43.28 reads:
The counties shall provide appropriate courtrooms, facilities, equipment, and, unless provided by the state, personnel necessary to operate the circuit and county courts.
. Article VII, section 18, as ratified by the electorate in the November 1990 general election provides as follows:
(a) No county or municipality shall be bound by any general law requiring such county or municipality to spend funds or to take an action requiring the expenditure of funds unless the legislature has determined that such law fulfills an important state interest and unless: funds have been appropriated that have been estimated at the time of enactment to be sufficient to fund such expenditure; the legislature authorizes or has autho rized a county or municipality to enact a funding source not available for such county or municipality on February 1, 1989, that can be used to generate the amount of funds estimated to be sufficient to fund such expenditure by a simple majority vote of the governing body of such county or municipality; the law requiring such expenditure is approved by two-thirds of the membership in each house of the legislature; the expenditure is required to comply with a law that applies to all persons similarly situated, including the state and local governments; or the law is either required to comply with a federal requirement or required for eligibility for a federal entitlement, which federal requirement specifically contemplates actions by counties or municipalities for compliance.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Salch, 673 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…uired and appointed under section 43.28. Other courts have also held the county responsible for fees where the appointment of counsel is mandated by statute. See Brevard County v. Harris, 657 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); In the Interest of B.C., 610 So. 2d 627 (Flalst DCA 1992); In re Skinner, 541 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Therefore, on remand, the trial court must determine if Mr. Saleh or the county is responsible for the payment of the guardian ad litem fee. The order of the trial court requirin…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of D. B. and D. S., 385 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1980)
- Williams v. State, 573 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- State v. The Honorable Alban Brooke of the Cir. Court of the Fourth Jud. Cir. In & For Duval Cnty., 573 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. C.G., 556 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)