Dependency Law Finder

Florida's dependency statutes, court rules and DCF operating procedures, with the appellate opinions that apply them

data.robertlathamesq.org · All tools

Before you use this site

This site aggregates legal authorities from a variety of public sources. It is AI and human reviewed. Text processing errors can occur. Always check the information here against the official linked source.

This site is publicly available. Use for general research only. Do not submit confidential or identifiable case information.

I don't agree: show the official sources

E.S. v. Department of Children & Families928 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) · 1D05-4563

Court
1st DCA
Decided
2006-05-03
Case
Dependency
Appellant
Father

Affirmed Denial of the incarcerated father's habeas petition affirmed: parents cannot collaterally attack counsel's effectiveness in a dependency case lacking termination or criminal charges.

Issues
Right to counsel & ineffective assistance, Post-judgment relief, Habeas corpus

Summary, issues, facts, outcome, and appellant were extracted automatically from the opinion. Check the opinion itself before relying on them.

On CourtListener
BROWNING, J.

E.S. (Appellant), who is the incarcerated father of a minor child, J.S., appeals the circuit court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The gravamen of Appellant’s petition is that his attorney, who was appointed by the trial court to represent him in the civil proceedings that led to the adjudication of J.S. as dependent and the placement of the child in long-term relative custody, was ineffective. The trial court denied the petition pursuant to S.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 851 So.2d 689 (Fla.2003). In that decision, the Supreme Court of Florida stated:

We conclude that in civil dependency proceedings which do not involve the possibility of criminal charges against the parent or the permanent termination of parental rights, there is no right to pursue a collateral proceeding questioning the competency of court-appointed counsel.

Id. at 694. Because the civil dependency proceedings relating to J.S. and Appellant did not involve the possibility of criminal charges against Appellant or the permanent termination of his parental rights, Appellant had no right to pursue the collateral attack on his counsel’s performance. Accordingly, the order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus is AFFIRMED.

WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Opinion text: CourtListener, Free Law Project. Not an official reporter; check the court's version before citing.