K.M., The Father v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES

District Court of Appeal of Florida

K.M., The Father v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 26, 2020

Docket19-3036

StatusPublished

This text of K.M., The Father v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES (K.M., The Father v. DEPT. 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

K.M., The Father v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, (Fla. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

K.M., the father, Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD LITEM, Appellees.

No. 4D19-3036

[February 26, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Robert B. Meadows, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562018DP000089.

Ryan Thomas Truskoski of Ryan Thomas Truskoski, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.

Andrew Feigenbaum of Children’s Legal Services, West Palm Beach, for appellee Department of Children & Families.

Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Laura J. Lee, Senior Attorney, Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM.

The Department removed the child, O.M., from the mother based entirely on injuries sustained by O.M.’s half-sibling, A.M. After the trial court denied termination of parental rights as to the half-sibling, the trial court dismissed the dependency proceedings against O.M. and returned the child to the mother. On appeal, O.M.’s father, K.M., claims that his due process rights were violated. We disagree and find that no violation of due process occurred. K.M. was notified of all hearings and participated in the proceedings below. Further, O.M. was taken from the mother and not K.M., who lived out-of-state. However, we agree that remand is necessary to correct a scrivener’s error in the amended final judgment, which incorrectly named M.M., rather than K.M., as O.M.’s father. 1

Affirmed and remanded.

LEVINE, C.J., GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

1Our affirmance in no way prejudices or prejudges K.M.’s rights as a father to O.M.

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

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

K.M., the father, Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD LITEM, Appellees.

No. 4D19-3036

[February 26, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Robert B. Meadows, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562018DP000089.

Ryan Thomas Truskoski of Ryan Thomas Truskoski, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.

Andrew Feigenbaum of Children’s Legal Services, West Palm Beach, for appellee Department of Children & Families.

Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Laura J. Lee, Senior Attorney, Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM.

The Department removed the child, O.M., from the mother based entirely on injuries sustained by O.M.’s half-sibling, A.M. After the trial court denied termination of parental rights as to the half-sibling, the trial court dismissed the dependency proceedings against O.M. and returned the child to the mother. On appeal, O.M.’s father, K.M., claims that his due process rights were violated. We disagree and find that no violation of due process occurred. K.M. was notified of all hearings and participated in the proceedings below. Further, O.M. was taken from the mother and not K.M., who lived out-of-state. However, we agree that remand is necessary to correct a scrivener’s error in the amended final judgment, which incorrectly named M.M., rather than K.M., as O.M.’s father. 1

Affirmed and remanded.

LEVINE, C.J., GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

1Our affirmance in no way prejudices or prejudges K.M.’s rights as a father to O.M.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

K.M., The Father v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/km-the-father-v-dept-of-children-families-fladistctapp-2020.