A.F. v. M.B.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

A.F. v. M.B.

950 So. 2d 432, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 820, 2007 WL 173869

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 25, 2007

DocketNo. 1D06-1858

StatusPublished

This text of 950 So. 2d 432 (A.F. v. M.B.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A.F. v. M.B., 950 So. 2d 432, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 820, 2007 WL 173869 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A.F. appeals an order terminating his parental rights. Finding appellant to be indigent, the trial court appointed counsel to represent him both in the proceedings below and before this court. As an indigent, appellant is also entitled to the preparation of a record of sufficient completeness to permit proper appellate review. See M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 117 S.Ct. 555, 136 L.Ed.2d 473 (1996). However, a court reporter was not present at the final hearing below, and the trial court has informed us that efforts to reconstruct the record of that hearing have been unsuccessful. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the trial court’s order and remand for a new trial. See M.T. v. Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Sem, 680 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

VAN NORTWICK, PADOVANO, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

A.F. appeals an order terminating his parental rights. Finding appellant to be indigent, the trial court appointed counsel to represent him both in the proceedings below and before this court. As an indigent, appellant is also entitled to the preparation of a record of sufficient completeness to permit proper appellate review. See M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 117 S.Ct. 555, 136 L.Ed.2d 473 (1996). However, a court reporter was not present at the final hearing below, and the trial court has informed us that efforts to reconstruct the record of that hearing have been unsuccessful. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the trial court’s order and remand for a new trial. See M.T. v. Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Sem, 680 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

VAN NORTWICK, PADOVANO, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

950 So. 2d 432, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 820, 2007 WL 173869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/af-v-mb-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack