W.S. v. Department of Children & Family Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

W.S. v. Department of Children & Family Services

865 So. 2d 616, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 518, 2004 WL 102841

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 23, 2004

DocketNo. 2D03-2411

StatusPublished

This text of 865 So. 2d 616 (W.S. 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

W.S. v. Department of Children & Family Services, 865 So. 2d 616, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 518, 2004 WL 102841 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

W.S. appeals an order terminating his parental rights to W.S., IV. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

These proceedings began as a shelter petition in August 2000, with a petition for dependency following soon thereafter in September 2000, involving two children and their mother. The appellant, W.S., was not involved in these proceedings until a petition to terminate his parental rights as to one of the children was filed in August 2002. When that child was born, W.S. suspected that he might be the father, but the mother denied he was the father. Despite the similarity in their initials, W.S., IV, does not share a name with W.S. It was not until December 2002 that paternity testing established W.S. as the [617]*617biological father. By that point, W.S. was in the custody of the Department of Corrections. He is scheduled for release in the near future.

The trial court terminated parental rights on the theory that W.S. had voluntarily abandoned the child during the period when the mother denied he was the father and when no birth certificate or other legal determination established his parental obligations. We conclude that the record does not support this determination. See J.T. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 819 So.2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); see also J.P.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 819 So.2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

W.S. also argues that the trial court has not taken adequate steps to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act. See 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (2002). The child’s mother has at least some Native American heritage. From our record, we are not certain that the trial court has fully complied with the Act. On remand, the trial court should take all steps necessary to comply.

Reversed and remanded.

ALTENBERND, C.J., and DAVIS and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

W.S. appeals an order terminating his parental rights to W.S., IV. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

These proceedings began as a shelter petition in August 2000, with a petition for dependency following soon thereafter in September 2000, involving two children and their mother. The appellant, W.S., was not involved in these proceedings until a petition to terminate his parental rights as to one of the children was filed in August 2002. When that child was born, W.S. suspected that he might be the father, but the mother denied he was the father. Despite the similarity in their initials, W.S., IV, does not share a name with W.S. It was not until December 2002 that paternity testing established W.S. as the [617]*617biological father. By that point, W.S. was in the custody of the Department of Corrections. He is scheduled for release in the near future.

The trial court terminated parental rights on the theory that W.S. had voluntarily abandoned the child during the period when the mother denied he was the father and when no birth certificate or other legal determination established his parental obligations. We conclude that the record does not support this determination. See J.T. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 819 So.2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); see also J.P.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 819 So.2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

W.S. also argues that the trial court has not taken adequate steps to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act. See 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (2002). The child’s mother has at least some Native American heritage. From our record, we are not certain that the trial court has fully complied with the Act. On remand, the trial court should take all steps necessary to comply.

Reversed and remanded.

ALTENBERND, C.J., and DAVIS and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

865 So. 2d 616, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 518, 2004 WL 102841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ws-v-department-of-children-family-services-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack