C.L. v. Florida Department of Children & Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida

C.L. v. Florida Department of Children & Families

66 So. 3d 411, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12260, 2011 WL 3341490

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 4, 2011

Docket1D11-1941

StatusPublished

This text of 66 So. 3d 411 (C.L. v. Florida Department of Children & Families) 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

C.L. v. Florida Department of Children & Families, 66 So. 3d 411, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12260, 2011 WL 3341490 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the trial court erred in holding the final hearing on termination of parental rights at a time when the appellant could not be present. Although the appellant was aware that his failure to appear at the hearing would be deemed a consent to termination, he had informed the court prior to the hearing that he could not attend on the scheduled date because he was working in Louisiana and could neither miss work nor afford to make the trip until he was paid. See In re H.S., 995 So.2d 516, 516 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (deeming financial hardship of a parent a circumstance beyond the parent’s control); In re A.N.D., 883 So.2d 910, 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (explaining that courts should avoid terminating a parent’s rights if the parent is making a reasonable effort to be present at the hearing but is prevented by circumstances beyond his or her control). He had requested only a short delay until he could be paid and travel to Florida, and the Department neither disputed or disproved the facts on which the appellant relied. Therefore, we reverse the final order terminating the appellant’s parental rights and remand for a new final hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

PADOVANO, ROBERTS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the trial court erred in holding the final hearing on termination of parental rights at a time when the appellant could not be present. Although the appellant was aware that his failure to appear at the hearing would be deemed a consent to termination, he had informed the court prior to the hearing that he could not attend on the scheduled date because he was working in Louisiana and could neither miss work nor afford to make the trip until he was paid. See In re H.S., 995 So.2d 516, 516 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (deeming financial hardship of a parent a circumstance beyond the parent’s control); In re A.N.D., 883 So.2d 910, 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (explaining that courts should avoid terminating a parent’s rights if the parent is making a reasonable effort to be present at the hearing but is prevented by circumstances beyond his or her control). He had requested only a short delay until he could be paid and travel to Florida, and the Department neither disputed or disproved the facts on which the appellant relied. Therefore, we reverse the final order terminating the appellant’s parental rights and remand for a new final hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

PADOVANO, ROBERTS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 So. 3d 411, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12260, 2011 WL 3341490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cl-v-florida-department-of-children-families-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack