R.P. v. Department of Children & Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida

R.P. v. Department of Children & Families

773 So. 2d 129, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16831, 2000 WL 1867618

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 22, 2000

DocketNo. 5D00-1772

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 773 So. 2d 129 (R.P. v. Department 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

R.P. v. Department of Children & Families, 773 So. 2d 129, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16831, 2000 WL 1867618 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PETERSON, J.

R.P. complains that the trial court erred by transferring temporary custody of a minor child, T.P., when there was no emergency present and no advance notice was given indicating that the Department of Children and Families would request the transfer during a hearing scheduled for case plan staffing. No evidence was presented at the hearing that an emergency existed that would have justified the absence of an advance notice.

Courts have consistently reversed temporary custody orders entered without notice, with insufficient notice, or with insufficient opportunity to be heard. See, e.g., Fee v. Usler, 761 So.2d 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Lewis v. Lewis, 725 So.2d 462 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Simmons v. Simmons, 698 So.2d 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Here, it is undisputed that no emergency existed that would justify the absence of adequate and reasonable notice. Accordingly, we vacate the order granting temporary custody of the minor child, T.P., and remand for a hearing on the custody issue after adequate notice is given to R.P.

ORDER VACATED; REMANDED.

SAWAYA and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

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

PETERSON, J.

R.P. complains that the trial court erred by transferring temporary custody of a minor child, T.P., when there was no emergency present and no advance notice was given indicating that the Department of Children and Families would request the transfer during a hearing scheduled for case plan staffing. No evidence was presented at the hearing that an emergency existed that would have justified the absence of an advance notice.

Courts have consistently reversed temporary custody orders entered without notice, with insufficient notice, or with insufficient opportunity to be heard. See, e.g., Fee v. Usler, 761 So.2d 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Lewis v. Lewis, 725 So.2d 462 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Simmons v. Simmons, 698 So.2d 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Here, it is undisputed that no emergency existed that would justify the absence of adequate and reasonable notice. Accordingly, we vacate the order granting temporary custody of the minor child, T.P., and remand for a hearing on the custody issue after adequate notice is given to R.P.

ORDER VACATED; REMANDED.

SAWAYA and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

773 So. 2d 129, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16831, 2000 WL 1867618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rp-v-department-of-children-families-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack