M.D., MOTHER OF C.D. AND B.D., MINOR CHILDREN, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, APPELLEE
M.D., MOTHER OF C.D. AND B.D., MINOR CHILDREN, APPELLANT,
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, APPELLEE
979 So. 2d 383
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2008)
Caution
Cited by 16 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Appellant M.D. seeks review of an order terminating her parental rights to C.D. and B.D. pursuant to section 39.806(l)(c) and (i), Florida Statutes (2006). Appellant argues the Department of Children and Families failed to prove her continued involvement would harm the children. Under the relevant case law, appellant is correct. See Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families v. F.L., 880 So. 2d 602, 610 (Fla.2004); M.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 866 So. 2d 220, 222-24 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). REVERSED and REMANDED.
WOLF, KAHN, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 120 So. 3d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…there is no possible tactical reason for counsel’s failure to object, an evi-dentiary hearing would be redundant. Accordingly, we reverse the denial of claim seven and remand for a new sentencing hearing before a different judge. Cf. Evans v. State, 979 So. 2d 383, 386 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (reversing summary denial of postconviction claim asserting ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to vindictive sentencing and remanding for resentencing before a different trial judge). Affirmed in part,…
-
Pierre v. State, 114 So. 3d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…al court itself offering a specific sentence in exchange for a guilty plea.3 See Vardaman, 63 So. 3d at 928-29 (judicial participation where the trial court offered a sentence in exchange for a plea); Mendez, 28 So. 3d at 949 (same); Evans v. State, 979 So. 2d 383, 384-86 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (same); Longley v. State, 902 So. 2d 925, 926-27 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (same). Judicial vindictiveness concerns, however, “may [also] arise where the trial [court] does not make the offer itself but, rather, becomes active…
-
Craun v. State, 124 So. 3d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…a failure, we need not remand this case for an evidentiary hearing. See id. We therefore reverse the summary denial of this claim in Craun’s rule 3.850 motion, and we remand for a new sentencing hearing before a different judge. See Evans v. State, 979 So. 2d 383, 386 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (reversing the summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion asserting ineffective assistance for failing to object to a vindictive sentence; remanding for resentencing by a new judge). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and reman…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families v. F.L., 880 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2004)
- K.J. v. State, 866 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- M.H. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 866 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)