IN THE INTEREST OF J.B., A MINOR CHILD. T.B., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 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 the failure to inform a parent of their right to counsel at the initial dependency proceeding is not harmless error when that adjudication is used as a basis for termination of parental rights.
The mother's parental rights were involuntarily terminated. She argued that she was not informed of her right to counsel at the initial dependency pro…
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 Right To Counsel In Dependency Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant, the natural mother of J.B., challenges the final order involuntarily terminating her parental rights to J.B. We reverse.
Appellant argues that her parental rights cannot be terminated because she was not informed of her right to counsel at the dependency proceeding when J.B. was initially adjudicated dependent. At an adjudicatory hearing on a petition for termination of parental rights, it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parent was informed of the right to counsel in the dependency proceeding. § 39.467(3)(c)1, Fla.Stat. (1991). Appellant, as conceded by appellee HRS, was clearly not so informed. Appellant was not represented by an attorney at this proceeding. Even though appellant was represented by counsel at later proceedings involving judicial review of the dependency adjudication, a failure to advise appellant of the right to counsel at the original dependency adjudication proceeding cannot be deemed harmless error since that dependency adjudication was used as a basis of the adjudication of the permanent termination of appellant’s parental right. In the Int. of D.B., 385 So. 2d 83 (Fla.1980); Dep’t of HRS v. Zeigler, 587 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); White v. Dep’t of HRS, 483 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (Cowart, J., concurring).
Because we find it necessary to reverse based on this point, we need not address appellant’s other two points. On remand, the custody of J.B., the minor child, shall not by reason of this opinion be changed, but the dependency process leading to any termination of parental rights shall be conducted with due protection given to appellant’s right to counsel.
SCHOONOVER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of A.L.O., 637 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…ruling had the effect of voiding and/or nullifying the first dependency adjudication, a result condemned in Belflower, Zeigler, and cases which followed. See, e.g., In the Interest of D.P., 595 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); In the Interest of J.B., 624 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Common sense and the law as implied in the cases cited above, mandate that all relevant evidence be considered before children are returned to their natural parents. Children should not be placed in a potentially dangerous envir…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of D. B. and D. S., 385 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1980)
- White v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 483 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Zeigler, 587 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)