Opinion
No. 3D12–1146.
2012-10-3
T.H., the father, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami–Dade County, Steven Robinson, Senior Circuit Judge. Albert W. Guffanti, Miami–Dade, for appellant. Karla Perkins, Appellate Counsel for the Department of Children and Families; Hillary S. Kambour, Appellate Counsel for the Guardian ad Litem Program.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami–Dade County, Steven Robinson, Senior Circuit Judge.
Albert W. Guffanti, Miami–Dade, for appellant.Karla Perkins, Appellate Counsel for the Department of Children and Families; Hillary S. Kambour, Appellate Counsel for the Guardian ad Litem Program.
Before SHEPHERD, CORTIÑAS and EMAS, JJ.
We affirm the final order of termination of parental rights, but do so without prejudice for T.H. to file a motion or petition with the court below, seeking collateral relief on his claim (raised in this appeal) that his appointed counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance. This is neither a comment on the relative merits of such a claim, nor even an explicit recognition that T.H. has a right to seek such relief. But see In re D.B., 385 So.2d 83, 87 (Fla.1980) (holding “a constitutional right to counsel necessarily arises where the proceedings can result in permanent loss of parental custody”); S.B. v. Dep't of Children and Families, 851 So.2d 689, 692 (Fla.2003) (explaining the right to counsel in TPR proceedings is “based on the recognition that there is a constitutionally protected interest in preserving the family and raising one's children”); E.T. v. State, Dept. of Children & Families, 930 So.2d 721, 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (recognizing “a constitutional right to counsel means effective counsel; otherwise, the right is meaningless”).