IN THE INTEREST OF S.S., R.S., B.S., AND J.S. B.S., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 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.
A father appealed from an order denying his motion for relief from a dependency stipulation entered without adequate counsel appointment procedures. The court vacated the denial and remanded, holding that the trial court violated Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.320 by failing to inform the father of his right to counsel or obtain a valid waiver before approving the stipulation.
The trial court violated Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.320 by failing to comply with its elaborate provisions for appointment of counsel and procedures concerning waiver of counsel. The denial of B.S.'s motion for relief from judgment may have denied him due process and was improper.
[1] A trial court must inform a parent of their right to counsel in dependency proceedings and cannot proceed without a waiver of counsel, even if the parent has expressed a…
[2] A trial court's failure to appoint counsel or obtain a waiver of counsel in a dependency proceeding may constitute a denial of due process.
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 failed to comply with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.320 which makes elaborate provision for appointment of counsel and for procedures concerning waiver of counsel”
Establishes the core legal violation: the trial court's failure to follow mandatory rule provisions regarding counsel appointment and waiver procedures
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceB.S., a father in a dependency case involving his four children, signed a stipulation with the Department of Children and Family Services. At the Febr…
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 Appointment Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, John M., (Senior) Judge.
The trial court rendered an order on February 23, 1999, approving a stipulation between the appellant/father, B.S., and the Department of Children and Family Services concerning a dependency petition involving B.S.’s children. At the hearing on the stipulation, the trial court did not inform B.S. of his right to counsel and no waiver of counsel was filed although B.S. had expressed the desire to consult with counsel.
In his motion for rehearing filed the following day, B.S. requested the trial court set aside the order approving the stipulation and appoint counsel. He failed to attend the March 30, 1999, hearing on his motion for rehearing, and the court denied his motion. On May 6, 1999, the court denied as untimely another motion for rehearing filed by B.S.
B.S. filed a timely motion under Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.140(a)(1) seeking relief from the order denying his motion for rehearing of the order entered February 23, 1999. He reiterated his desire to have counsel appointed to represent him. On May 5, 1999, the trial court denied B.S.’s request, and on June 2, 1999, B.S. filed a timely notice of appeal from the denial of his request for relief from the judgment.
It would serve no useful purpose to chronicle the details of the many problems and excuses B.S. alleged for his failure to attend the hearing set by the court on his motion for rehearing of the February 23, 1999, order. Rather, the core problem here is that the record reveals the trial court failed to comply with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.320 which makes elaborate provision for appointment of counsel and for procedures concerning waiver of counsel. Commendably, the Department of Children and Family Services concedes that because the trial court did not appoint counsel, it may have denied B.S. due process of law and should have granted his motion seeking relief from the February 23,1999, order. Accordingly, we vacate the order denying relief from judgment and direct the trial court to comply with rule 8.320 concerning appointment of counsel and, thereafter,, to rehear the father’s motion for rehearing directed to the February 23, 1999, order.1
BLUE, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur. . In addition to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.320, we commend to the trial court's attention:. In the Interest of R.K., 535 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), and In the Interest of S.N.D., 605 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of R.K., Jr., 535 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- In the Interest of S.N.D. and J.D. v. State, 605 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)