E.S., FATHER OF J.S., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Father of dependent child lacks right to collateral attack on appointed counsel's effectiveness in civil dependency proceeding that did not involve criminal charges or permanent termination of parental rights.
In civil dependency proceedings without criminal charges or permanent termination of parental rights, there is no right to pursue a collateral proceeding questioning the competency of court-appointed counsel.
[1] In civil dependency proceedings that do not involve criminal charges or permanent termination of parental rights, a parent has no right to pursue a collateral proceeding…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceE.S., an incarcerated father, sought habeas corpus relief challenging his appointed attorney's effectiveness in civil dependency proceedings that resu…
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 Appointed Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, J.
E.S. (Appellant), who is the incarcerated father of a minor child, J.S., appeals the circuit court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The gravamen of Appellant’s petition is that his attorney, who was appointed by the trial court to represent him in the civil proceedings that led to the adjudication of J.S. as dependent and the placement of the child in long-term relative custody, was ineffective. The trial court denied the petition pursuant to S.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 851 So. 2d 689 (Fla.2003). In that decision, the Supreme Court of Florida stated:
We conclude that in civil dependency proceedings which do not involve the possibility of criminal charges against the parent or the permanent termination of parental rights, there is no right to pursue a collateral proceeding questioning the competency of court-appointed counsel.
Id. at 694. Because the civil dependency proceedings relating to J.S. and Appellant did not involve the possibility of criminal charges against Appellant or the permanent termination of his parental rights, Appellant had no right to pursue the collateral attack on his counsel’s performance. Accordingly, the order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus is AFFIRMED.
WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.