DM v. Department of Children and Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida

DM v. Department of Children and Families

31 So. 3d 945, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4700, 2010 WL 1404087

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 8, 2010

Docket5D09-3608

StatusPublished

This text of 31 So. 3d 945 (DM v. Department of Children and 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

DM v. Department of Children and Families, 31 So. 3d 945, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4700, 2010 WL 1404087 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

D.M. [“Mother”] appeals a final order terminating her parental rights to K.P. Mother asserts that the trial court failed to comply with section 39.803, Florida Statutes (2009), and the Department of Children and Families [“DCF”] failed to offer competent proof to support the trial court’s findings. DCF offered testimony *946 of a case worker that the mother never identified the father and that DCF had made a request to determine whether anyone had registered with the Putative Father Registry, but no response or certificate had yet been received. This may have been considered a formality under the circumstances of the case and it may turn out to be a formality, but it is a formality that must be observed. Otherwise, there is a risk of unnecessary judicial labor and delay in permanent placement of the child. Cf. In the Interest of E.D., 884 So.2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

GRIFFIN, PALMER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

D.M. [“Mother”] appeals a final order terminating her parental rights to K.P. Mother asserts that the trial court failed to comply with section 39.803, Florida Statutes (2009), and the Department of Children and Families [“DCF”] failed to offer competent proof to support the trial court’s findings. DCF offered testimony *946 of a case worker that the mother never identified the father and that DCF had made a request to determine whether anyone had registered with the Putative Father Registry, but no response or certificate had yet been received. This may have been considered a formality under the circumstances of the case and it may turn out to be a formality, but it is a formality that must be observed. Otherwise, there is a risk of unnecessary judicial labor and delay in permanent placement of the child. Cf. In the Interest of E.D., 884 So.2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

GRIFFIN, PALMER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 So. 3d 945, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4700, 2010 WL 1404087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dm-v-department-of-children-and-families-fladistctapp-2010.