E.T. v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

E.T. v. State

957 So. 2d 559, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 181, 2007 Fla. LEXIS 717

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedApril 26, 2007

DocketNo. SC06-1396

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 957 So. 2d 559 (E.T. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

E.T. v. State, 957 So. 2d 559, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 181, 2007 Fla. LEXIS 717 (Fla. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We initially accepted jurisdiction to review the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in E.T. v. State, 930 So.2d 721 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). The district court ruled upon the following question, which the court certified to be of great public importance:

(1) DOES FLORIDA RECOGNIZE A CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ARISING FROM A LAWYER’S REPRESENTATION OF A PARENT(S) IN A PROCEEDING FOR THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS?

(2) IF SO, WHAT PROCEDURE MUST BE FOLLOWED TO PURSUE A CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL?

Id. at 729. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

Upon further consideration, we have now determined that because the children have been adopted the case is moot. Because the case is moot, we exercise our discretion and discharge jurisdiction. The issue of ineffective assistance of counsel claims in termination of parental rights cases will be referred to the Juvenile Court Rules Committee and the Appellate Court Rules Committee for consideration [560]*560of a rule to address such claims. Accordingly, this review proceeding is hereby dismissed.

It is so ordered.

LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ.,'concur.

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