S.G. appeals an order adjudicating her child dependent and requiring her to comply with a case plan. At the arraignment hearing, the lower tribunal entered a consent by default for the mother, finding she was properly noticed of the arraignment hearing but failed to appear. On appeal, S.G. argues the lower tribunal denied her due process when it ordered her to comply with a case plan at the arraignment hearing without providing notice that adjudication or disposition of the petition would occur. We accept the Department of Children and Families’ concession of error on this point, and reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with Chapter 39, Florida Statutes. See J.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 890 So.2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); see also Dep’t of Children & Families v. T.S., 154 So.3d 1223, 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“An arraignment provides the opportunity ‘for the parent- or legal custodian to admit, deny, or consent to findings of dependency alleged in the petition.’ § 39.506(1) — (2), Fla. Stat. (2014). Depending on the parents’ response, a disposition hearing will be held within fifteen or thirty days of the arraignment hearing. Id.”). Because this issue is dispositive, we do not address the second issue S.G. raises on appeal.
S.G. v. Department of Children & Families176 So. 3d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) · 1D15-3430-2
- Court
- 1st DCA
- Decided
- 2015-11-02
- Case
- Dependency
- Appellant
- Mother
- County
- Duval
Reversed & remanded Dependency adjudication and case plan reversed on DCF's concession: the mother lacked notice that adjudication or disposition would occur at an arraignment she missed.
- Law cited
- § 39.506(1)
Summary, issues, facts, outcome, and appellant were extracted automatically from the opinion. Check the opinion itself before relying on them.
Opinion text: CourtListener, Free Law Project. Not an official reporter; check the court's version before citing.
Not cited
No opinion in CourtListener's collection cites this case.
Cites 2 opinions in this collection
Citations to cases outside the collection are linked in the opinion text itself.
- Department of Children & Families v. T.S. 4D14-3629 · 4th DCA 2015Sua sponte dismissal of a dependency petition at arraignment reversed: DCF and the child got no notice or hearing, and best interests were ignored.
- J.H. v. Department of Children & Families 5D04-1876 · 5th DCA 2004Dismissal and placement with the father reversed because the mother had no notice of a disposition hearing and no predisposition report or home study existed.