S.G. MOTHER OF K. H., MINOR CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Florida appellate court reversed a dependency adjudication and case plan order because the trial court failed to provide notice that adjudication or disposition would occur at the arraignment hearing, violating due process.
A trial court violates due process by ordering a parent to comply with a case plan at an arraignment hearing without notice that adjudication or disposition of the dependency petition would occur.
[1] A trial court violates due process in a dependency case by ordering a parent to comply with a case plan at an arraignment hearing without providing notice that adjudicati…
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 intelligence“An arraignment provides the opportunity 'for the parent- or legal custodian to admit, deny, or consent to findings of dependency alleged in the petition.' § 39.506(1)—(2), Fla. Stat. (2014). Depending on the parents' response, a disposition hearing will be held within fifteen or thirty days of the arraignment hearing.”
The court explained the proper procedure for arraignment and disposition hearings in dependency cases under Florida law.
S.G. was the mother of a minor child. At an arraignment hearing in a dependency case, the trial court entered a consent by default against S.G. for fa…
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 Case Plan Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
S.G. appeals an order adjudicating her child dependent and requiring her to comply with a case plan. At the arraignment hearing, the lower tribunal entered a consent by default for the mother, finding she was properly noticed of the arraignment hearing but failed to appear. On appeal, S.G. argues the lower tribunal denied her due process when it ordered her to comply with a case plan at the arraignment hearing without providing notice that adjudication or disposition of the petition would occur. We accept the Department of Children and Families’ concession of error on this point, and reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with Chapter 39, Florida Statutes. See J.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 890 So.2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); see also Dep’t of Children & Families v. T.S., 154 So.3d 1223, 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“An arraignment provides the opportunity ‘for the parent- or legal custodian to admit, deny, or consent to findings of dependency alleged in the petition.’ § 39.506(1) — (2), Fla. Stat. (2014). Depending on the parents’ response, a disposition hearing will be held within fifteen or thirty days of the arraignment hearing. Id.”). Because this issue is dispositive, we do not address the second issue S.G. raises on appeal.
BENTON, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Child. & Families v. T.S., 154 So. 3d 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- J.H. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 890 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)