Department of Children & Families v. H.W.W.

816 So. 2d 1249, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 7643, 2002 WL 1071536
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 31, 2002
DocketNo. 5D01-2347
StatusPublished

This text of 816 So. 2d 1249 (Department of Children & Families v. H.W.W.) 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
Department of Children & Families v. H.W.W., 816 So. 2d 1249, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 7643, 2002 WL 1071536 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

GRIFFIN, J.

The State Department of Children and Families [“DCF”] appeals an order entered in a dependency case designating appellee, H.W.W., as the long-term relative placement for four children.

On March 29, 2000, the four children were taken into custody by DCF. The children were placed with H.W.W. and B.N. Although H.W.W. and B.N. are originally shown in court records as the children’s grandparents, H.W.W. appears to be related to the children through his daughter, whose half-sister is the children’s mother. The children continued in that placement for over a year.

Sometime before July 12, 2001, the trial judge called an informal meeting in his chambers to explore options for obtaining financial assistance for H.W.W. and B.N. in caring for the children. The meeting was not formally noticed, nor was a court reporter present. The parents of the children, although parties to the dependency, were not informed of the meeting. The meeting resulted in the issuance of an order finding that H.W.W. was a “relative caregiver” within the meaning of section 39.5085, Florida Statutes (2000)1 and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65C-24, and which declared him to be entitled to receive certain financial assistance in caring for the children. The de[1251]*1251fendant did not seek reconsideration or rehearing of this order but, instead, filed this appeal claiming that it was a procedural error for the court to enter this order since this meeting had none of the essential attributes of a juvenile dependency hearing, including a motion, notice, taking of evidence and transcription. Although there is nothing in the statement of proceedings reconstructing the record to suggest that the DCF ever objected to the proceedings, their informality or the outcome, we are bound to agree that the order cannot stand.

We are unaware how prevalent is this practice of a judge convening “meetings” rather than conducting hearings in juvenile cases. Such a practice does appear to be fraught with potential for problems, however. Certainly, if one of these “meetings” appears to be moving in the direction of court action, it is incumbent on the court to either adjourn the meeting and convene a hearing in accordance with the rules, or to create a record establishing that those procedures have been waived. The appealed order is vacated.

Order VACATED.

THOMPSON, C.J., and SAWAYA, J„ concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
816 So. 2d 1249, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 7643, 2002 WL 1071536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-children-families-v-hww-fladistctapp-2002.