K.M., THE FATHER
v.
DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES
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 due process rights are not violated when a child is removed from a parent they do not reside with and the parent is notified of and participates in all proceedings.
[1] A parent who is notified of and participates in dependency proceedings involving a child is not deprived of due process even if the child is removed from another parent w…
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 intelligenceThe Department removed child O.M. from the mother based on injuries sustained by O.M.'s half-sibling A.M. After the trial court denied termination of …
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 Dependency Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Andrew Feigenbaum of Children’s Legal Services, West Palm Beach, for appellee Department of Children & Families.
Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Laura J. Lee, Senior Attorney, Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.
PER CURIAM.
The Department removed the child, O.M., from the mother based entirely on injuries sustained by O.M.’s half-sibling, A.M. After the trial court denied termination of parental rights as to the half-sibling, the trial court dismissed the dependency proceedings against O.M. and returned the child to the mother. On appeal, O.M.’s father, K.M., claims that his due process rights were violated. We disagree and find that no violation of due process occurred. K.M. was notified of all hearings and participated in the proceedings below. Further, O.M. was taken from the mother and not K.M., who lived out-of-state. However, we agree that remand is necessary to correct a scrivener’s error in the amended final judgment, which incorrectly named M.M., rather than K.M., as O.M.’s father.1 Affirmed and remanded. LEVINE, C.J., GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.