A.C., A MINOR CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPT. OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES AND M.K.O., APPELLEES
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 Fourth District affirmed the trial court's denial of the grandmother's petition to terminate parental rights based on substantial evidence supporting reunification, but reversed the sua sponte order returning the mother's other child due to lack of notice and opportunity to be heard.
A trial court's finding that reunification does not pose substantial risk of harm is affirmed when supported by competent substantial evidence, but sua sponte orders affecting a child in a separate case require prior notice and opportunity to be heard.
[1] A trial court's credibility determinations and findings regarding substantial risk of harm in dependency proceedings are reviewed for competent substantial evidence and w…
[2] A trial court lacks authority to sua sponte order disposition of a child in a separate case without prior notice to interested parties and opportunity to be heard.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.M.S., the maternal grandmother of A.C., petitioned to terminate the natural mother's parental rights. The trial court denied the petition, finding r…
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 Petition For Visitation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
R.M.S., the maternal grandmother of A.C., a minor child, appeals from an order denying her petition to terminate the natural mother’s parental rights over A.C. Although the evidence was highly disputed, the trial court weighed the credibility of the witnesses and sided with the mother. As there was competent substantial evidence to support that reunification did not pose a substantial risk of harm to A.C., we affirm this part of the order. See In Re Adoption of Baby E.A.W., 658 So. 2d 961, 967 (Fla.l995)(holding appellate court should not reweigh the testimony and evidence, nor substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact); §§ 39.806(1), 39.810, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998).
However, we find error in that part of the order in which the court sua sponte mandated the return of AC.’s sister to the mother. The sister was the subject of a separate petition for visitation filed by R.M.S., filed under another case number. There is nothing in the record to inform us whether the trial court even had jurisdiction to entertain any issues pertinent to the second child. In any event, the court did not give R.M.S. prior notice that the second child’s disposition would be addressed at A.C.’s final hearing and, therefore, R.M.S. did not have a sufficient opportunity to be heard on this issue. Accordingly, we reverse this part of the order. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
STONE, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re the Adoption OF Baby E.A.W. G.W.B. v. J.S.W., 658 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1995)