A.S. v. Biddle

District Court of Appeal of Florida

A.S. v. Biddle

829 So. 2d 1004, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 16968, 2002 WL 31526132

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 15, 2002

DocketNo. 2D02-3538

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 829 So. 2d 1004 (A.S. v. Biddle) 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.S. v. Biddle, 829 So. 2d 1004, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 16968, 2002 WL 31526132 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

BLUE, Chief Judge.

The petition for writ of prohibition is granted and the order for preventive services entered by the trial court is quashed. The trial court was acting in excess of its jurisdiction when it ordered that A.S., the mother, make her three children available to their grandparents to permit the grandparents to assess the medical, dental, and educational “situations”; ordered A.S. to deliver the children to their grandparents for overnight visitations; and authorized the grandparents to obtain medical, dental, and educational evaluations of the children, absent a finding that the children were dependent.

The maternal grandparents initiated a dependency action by filing a dependency petition in the circuit court. The grandparents also filed a motion to obtain custody of the children. The order under review was entered at the close of the hearing on the motion for custody.

The right to raise one’s children without interference from the state is a fundamental right that cannot be abrogated absent a compelling state interest. See Beagle v. Beagle, 678 So.2d 1271, 1276 (Fla.1996). Protecting a child from “demonstrable harm” is a compelling state interest that justifies state intrusion on the right. Id. The legislature has provided a lengthy definition of harm in section 39.01(30), Florida Statutes (2002). Through chapter 39, the legislature has also supplied the framework for state action when children are subject to or threatened with harm. When individuals enlist the judicial system to intervene in a parent/ehild relationship,. the court must scrupulously adhere to the pertinent statutes in determining whether such interference is warranted. After deciding that the evidence did not warrant placing the children in shelter care, the trial judge could not legally order A.S. to perform any action with respect to the children absent a finding of dependency.

This case represents an unfortunate situation in which the grandparents obviously care for the children. However, their status as grandparents does not confer on them any special rights to direct the upbringing of these children or to visit with the children without the parents’ permission. We are hopeful that the parties can look past their differences and work together in the best interests of the children.

Prohibition granted, writ quashed, and case remanded to trial court.

DAVIS, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F„ SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.

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

BLUE, Chief Judge.

The petition for writ of prohibition is granted and the order for preventive services entered by the trial court is quashed. The trial court was acting in excess of its jurisdiction when it ordered that A.S., the mother, make her three children available to their grandparents to permit the grandparents to assess the medical, dental, and educational “situations”; ordered A.S. to deliver the children to their grandparents for overnight visitations; and authorized the grandparents to obtain medical, dental, and educational evaluations of the children, absent a finding that the children were dependent.

The maternal grandparents initiated a dependency action by filing a dependency petition in the circuit court. The grandparents also filed a motion to obtain custody of the children. The order under review was entered at the close of the hearing on the motion for custody.

The right to raise one’s children without interference from the state is a fundamental right that cannot be abrogated absent a compelling state interest. See Beagle v. Beagle, 678 So.2d 1271, 1276 (Fla.1996). Protecting a child from “demonstrable harm” is a compelling state interest that justifies state intrusion on the right. Id. The legislature has provided a lengthy definition of harm in section 39.01(30), Florida Statutes (2002). Through chapter 39, the legislature has also supplied the framework for state action when children are subject to or threatened with harm. When individuals enlist the judicial system to intervene in a parent/ehild relationship,. the court must scrupulously adhere to the pertinent statutes in determining whether such interference is warranted. After deciding that the evidence did not warrant placing the children in shelter care, the trial judge could not legally order A.S. to perform any action with respect to the children absent a finding of dependency.

This case represents an unfortunate situation in which the grandparents obviously care for the children. However, their status as grandparents does not confer on them any special rights to direct the upbringing of these children or to visit with the children without the parents’ permission. We are hopeful that the parties can look past their differences and work together in the best interests of the children.

Prohibition granted, writ quashed, and case remanded to trial court.

DAVIS, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F„ SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

829 So. 2d 1004, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 16968, 2002 WL 31526132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/as-v-biddle-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack