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

S.B. v. Department of Children & Families775 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) · 2D00-1529

Court
2nd DCA
Decided
2000-10-25
Case
TPR
Appellant
Mother

Reversed & remanded Termination reversed on the State's concession because the mother was served only by certified mail, not personally with the petition and advisory hearing notice.

Issue
Notice & service of process
Law cited
§ 39.801(3)(a)1. · Rule 8.505(a)(1)

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

On CourtListener
PER CURIAM.

S.B. challenges an order, which terminates her parental rights to her minor *357child, A.B. The State concedes error with respect to S.B.’s dispositive claim that she was not effectively served with a termination petition and notice of an advisory hearing. We reverse.

Pursuant to section 39.801(3)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (1999), and Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.505(a)(1), a parent in a termination proceeding must be personally served with a petition and notice of an advisory hearing. See M.E. v. Department of Children & Family Servs., 728 So.2d 367, 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); see also J.B. v. Department of Children & Family Servs., 768 So.2d 1060 (Fla.2000) (stating that twenty-four hours’ notice of advisory hearing is insufficient to satisfy minimum due process requirements). The record here shows that, contrary to the statute and the rule, S.B. was served only by certified mail and only with a termination petition. Service was thus invalid.

Therefore, since the State correctly concedes error in this instance, and since this issue is indeed dispositive, we reverse the order terminating S.B.’s parental rights to A.B. and do not otherwise address the remaining two issues S.B. has raised on this appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

PATTERSON, C.J., THREADGILL and BLUE., JJ., Concur.

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