L.C., THE MOTHER
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, ET AL.
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 parent's failure to appear at an adjudicatory hearing on a termination of parental rights petition, after being ordered to appear at an advisory hearing, constitutes constructive consent to termination, and the trial court properly denies a motion to vacate such default absent a showing of due diligence, excusable neglect, and a meritorious defense.
[1] A parent's failure to appear at an adjudicatory hearing on a petition for termination of parental rights, after being ordered to appear at an advisory hearing, constitute…
[2] To vacate a consent default in a termination of parental rights case, the parent must demonstrate due diligence, excusable neglect, and the existence of a meritorious def…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“If a parent appears for the advisory hearing and the court orders that parent to appear at the adjudicatory hearing for the petition for termination of parental rights, stating the date, time, and location of the hearing then failure of that parent to appear at the adjudicatory hearing constitutes consent for termination of parental rights.”
This establishes the statutory basis for treating a parent's non-appearance as constructive consent to termination.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMother failed to appear at an April 17, 2026 adjudicatory hearing on DCF's petition to terminate her parental rights for her minor child A.I. The tria…
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 Termination Of Parental Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed October 28, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D26-1246 Lower Tribunal No. D15-16021
L.C., the Mother, Appellant,
vs.
Department of Children and Families, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Michelle Alvarez Barakat, Judge.
Albert W. Guffanti, P.A., and Albert W. Guffanti, for appellant.
Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb and Laura J. Lee (Tallahassee), for appellee Guardian ad Litem; Karla F. Perkins, for appellee Department of Children and Families.
Before SCALES, C.J., and LOGUE and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant L.C. (“Mother”) failed to appear at an April 17, 2026 adjudicatory hearing on appellee Department of Children and Families' ("DCF") petition to terminate Mother's parental rights for her minor child, A.I., (“TPR petition”). This resulted in a consent default.¹ The trial court thereafter entered an April 22, 2026 final judgment terminating Mother's parental rights. We affirm the trial court's denial of Mother's motion to vacate the consent
default² and the trial court's final judgment terminating Mother's parental rights.3
We remand, however, so the trial court may correct what appears to be inadvertent scrivener's errors contained in the Introduction section of the final judgment. The Introduction states that "[t]he Department is not seeking to terminate the mother's rights” and the "Court had the opportunity to listen
to, observe, and weigh evidence” on each of the grounds alleged in DCF's TPR petition. The Mother is correct that those statements are inaccurate. Indeed, DCF's TPR petition sought to terminate Mother's parental rights, and, by virtue of the consent default, the trial court heard no evidence below on the grounds alleged in DCF's TPR petition.4 But these inadvertent mistakes do not constitute reversible error because they had no substantive effect on the trial court's analysis and decision. See T.V. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 318 So. 3d 649, 650 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021). We, therefore, affirm the final judgment and remand only for the correction of the scrivener's errors. Id.
Affirmed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs. v. P.E., 14 So. 3d 228 (Fla. 2009)
- E.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 878 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- In the Interest of G.M. and V.M. v. M.M. and A.H., 36 So. 3d 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- A.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 291 So. 3d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
- D.T. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 318 So. 3d 649 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)
- L.E. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 91 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)