DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
v.
L., L.
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.
The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed a circuit court's order placing a minor child in permanent guardianship with the father, holding that the Department of Children and Families' due process rights were violated when the father made an oral motion for permanent guardianship without prior written notice to the Department.
The court held that the Department's due process rights were violated because the father failed to provide prior written notice of his intent to seek permanent guardianship. The court reversed the order placing the child in permanent guardianship and remanded the case.
[1] A court order placing a child in permanent guardianship and terminating protective supervision will be reversed when the Department of Children and Families was not provi…
[2] Due process requires that the Department of Children and Families receive notice of a parent's intent to seek permanent guardianship.
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“We have consistently held that the Department's failure to notify a parent of its intent to seek a permanent guardianship violates due process.”
Establishes the foundational principle that due process requires notice to interested parties when seeking permanent guardianship.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt a September 18, 2024 judicial review hearing, the father (D.L.) orally moved for permanent guardianship of his son (H.L.). The mother (N.L.) testif…
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 Ore Tenus Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
In the Interest of H.L., a minor child.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,
Appellant,
v.
H.L., D.L., N.L., and GUARDIAN AD LITEM OFFICE, Appellees.
No. 2D2024-2494
February 7, 2025
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Marion L. Fleming, Judge. Mary Soorus of Children Legal Services, Appellate Counsel, Tampa, for Appellant Department of Children and Families. Clay W. Oberhausen of Office of Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, Sarasota, for Appellee H.L. Jonathan Hackworth of Hackworth Law, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee D.L. Thomas J. Butler of Thomas Butler, P.A., Miami Beach, for Appellee N.L. Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Sarah Todd Weitz, Senior Attorney, Appellate Division, Tallahassee, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem Office. VILLANTI, Judge.
The Department of Children and Families appeals the order placing D.L. and N.L.'s son, H.L., in a permanent guardianship with D.L. and terminating protective supervision. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(x). Because the Department was not provided prior notice of D.L.'s ore tenus motion for permanent guardianship, we reverse. D.L., N.L., and the Guardian ad Litem all rightly concede error on this issue. At the September 18, 2024, judicial review, H.L.'s father, D.L., orally moved for permanent guardianship. D.L. called one witness, N.L., the mother, who testified that she did not oppose. The Department objected that the court could not lawfully place H.L. in a permanent guardianship with D.L. because H.L. had not been placed with D.L. for the length of time required by section 39.6221(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2024). The court granted the motion.
The Department timely moved for rehearing and argued, inter alia, that due process was violated because no written motion or notice was provided prior to the hearing on September 18, 2024, that the father would be seeking to close the case through permanent guardianship. We have consistently held that the Department's failure to notify a parent of its intent to seek a permanent guardianship violates due process. K.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam., 204 So. 3d 120, 120–21 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); J.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 130 So. 3d 753, 756–57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); P.P. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 86 So. 3d 556, 559–60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); T.H. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 928 So. 2d 1291, 1294 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). We see no reason why the Department does not also have the right to be notified that a parent intends to seek permanent guardianship. See, e.g., Dep't of Child. & Fam. v. K.H., 937 So. 2d 807, 808 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Here, the circuit court's order placing H.L. in a permanent guardianship and terminating protective supervision violated the Department's due process rights because D.L. failed to notify the Department that he would move for permanent guardianship at the September 18, 2024, judicial review.
Reversed and remanded.
LaROSE and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of K.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 86 So. 3d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- In the Interest of J.B. and J.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 130 So. 3d 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Dep't OF Child. & Families v. K.H. the Mother and A.A. the Father, 937 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- In the Interest of H.T. v. Dep't of Child. & Families & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 204 So. 3d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)