A.C., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES AND THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, 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.
A.C. appealed the denial of her motion to withdraw her consent to termination of parental rights. The Third District affirmed, holding that A.C. knowingly and voluntarily consented to surrender of her parental rights with no evidence of fraud, duress, or undue influence.
The court affirmed the denial of A.C.'s motion because she failed to demonstrate any fraud, duress, or undue influence. A.C. exercised her own free will, understood all of her rights, and freely consented to the termination.
[1] A voluntary and knowing consent to termination of parental rights, given after a thorough judicial inquiry, cannot be withdrawn absent a showing of fraud, duress, or undu…
[2] A trial court's denial of a motion to withdraw consent to termination of parental rights will be affirmed when the evidence demonstrates the consent was knowing and volun…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A.C. exercised her own free will, understood all of her rights and freely consented to the termination.”
The court's holding that A.C. knowingly and voluntarily consented without fraud, duress, or undue influence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn October 2008, A.C. signed an affidavit consenting to surrender of her parental rights. At a hearing, the trial judge extensively questioned A.C. ab…
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 Voluntariness Of Consent cases and more on FLexlaw
A.C. appeals the denial of her motion to withdraw, vacate, or set aside her consent to termination of parental rights. We affirm the trial judge’s denial of A.C.’s motion as he correctly determined that A.C. knowingly consented to the surrender of rights and that no fraud, duress, or undue influence was demonstrated.
In October 2008, A.C. signed an affidavit voluntarily consenting to a surrender of her rights to her minor child. At that time, the trial judge held a hearing on the consent to terminate her rights and questioned A.C. extensively as to whether she had voluntarily signed the consent to termination and whether she understood she was giving up her parental rights and her right to trial. The trial judge cautioned her that the prospective adoptive parent was not guaranteed and that she could not withdraw her consent. A.C. acknowledged that she was not under the influence of drugs, alcohol or medication and that she understood all that was happening. The trial judge then entered a final judgment of termination of rights.
A.C. then filed her motion to withdraw, vacate or set aside consent to termination *112of parental rights alleging a change in the adoptive parent and fraud, duress, and undue influence. The trial judge held an evidentiary hearing and found that no fraud, duress, or undue influence had been demonstrated and found that A.C. had knowingly consented to the termination of her rights. He denied her motion to vacate the final judgment of termination of rights.
We affirm the trial judge’s denial of the motion to withdraw consent on the holding that there was no showing of fraud, duress, or undue influence. A.C. exercised her own free will, understood all of her rights and freely consented to the termination.1 See W.T. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 846 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (upholding consent to termination of rights where evidence established mother was competent, understood the terms of surrender of her rights, had not been promised anything or threatened, and was advised as to future chances of keeping children which did not amount to duress).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- W.T. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 846 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- D.S. v. J.L., 18 So. 3d 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)