K.K. v. Department of Children & Family Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

K.K. v. Department of Children & Family Services

862 So. 2d 903, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19265, 2003 WL 22970981

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 19, 2003

DocketNo. 2D02-5342

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 862 So. 2d 903 (K.K. v. Department of Children & Family Services) 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

K.K. v. Department of Children & Family Services, 862 So. 2d 903, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19265, 2003 WL 22970981 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

CANADY, Judge.

K.K. appeals an order of the trial court terminating his parental rights. This order was based on a “default” for “failure to appear” at the adjudicatory hearing in his case. K.K. arrived at the adjudicatory hearing approximately twenty minutes late. K.K’s attorney then moved that the trial court set aside the default and hear the case. Counsel explained to the court that K.K. was late because the disabled relative who had provided transportation for K.K. had experienced difficulty finding a handicapped parking space near the courthouse. The trial court denied the motion to set aside the default. In doing so, the trial court abused its discretion.

This is one of a number of cases in which the trial court either adjudicated a child dependent or terminated parental rights due to a parent’s tardiness in appearing for the scheduled hearing. For the reasons this court has previously explained, we reverse the order terminating K.K.’s parental rights and remand for further proceedings. See T.E.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 28 Fla. L. Weekly D2714, — So.2d -, 2003 WL 22795083 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov. 26, 2003) (reversing order terminating father’s parental rights which was based on a default entered for the father’s tardy appearance at hearing); see also G.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 857 So.2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (reversing order adjudicating child dependent which was based on a default entered for father’s tardy appearance at hearing). “This opinion does not require the trial court to alter custody or current visitation rights, but the trial court must review these issues and make a lawful decision as soon as possible following issuance of our mandate.” T.E.D., 28 Fla. L. Weekly at D2714, — So.2d at -.

Reversed and remanded.

CASANUEVA and VILLANTI, JJ., concur.

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

CANADY, Judge.

K.K. appeals an order of the trial court terminating his parental rights. This order was based on a “default” for “failure to appear” at the adjudicatory hearing in his case. K.K. arrived at the adjudicatory hearing approximately twenty minutes late. K.K’s attorney then moved that the trial court set aside the default and hear the case. Counsel explained to the court that K.K. was late because the disabled relative who had provided transportation for K.K. had experienced difficulty finding a handicapped parking space near the courthouse. The trial court denied the motion to set aside the default. In doing so, the trial court abused its discretion.

This is one of a number of cases in which the trial court either adjudicated a child dependent or terminated parental rights due to a parent’s tardiness in appearing for the scheduled hearing. For the reasons this court has previously explained, we reverse the order terminating K.K.’s parental rights and remand for further proceedings. See T.E.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 28 Fla. L. Weekly D2714, — So.2d -, 2003 WL 22795083 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov. 26, 2003) (reversing order terminating father’s parental rights which was based on a default entered for the father’s tardy appearance at hearing); see also G.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 857 So.2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (reversing order adjudicating child dependent which was based on a default entered for father’s tardy appearance at hearing). “This opinion does not require the trial court to alter custody or current visitation rights, but the trial court must review these issues and make a lawful decision as soon as possible following issuance of our mandate.” T.E.D., 28 Fla. L. Weekly at D2714, — So.2d at -.

Reversed and remanded.

CASANUEVA and VILLANTI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

862 So. 2d 903, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19265, 2003 WL 22970981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kk-v-department-of-children-family-services-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack