In Interest of D.P

5 Citing cases

  1. J.P. v. Fla. Dep't of Children & Families

    100 So. 3d 271 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

    Accordingly, the final order is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings which comply with sections 39.801, 49.09 and 49.10, Florida Statutes, and with rule 8.505, Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure. See J.M. v. Dep't. of Children & Families, 833 So.2d 279 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); In Interest of D. P., 595 So.2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). CLARK, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., Concur.

  2. R.M. v. Dept. of Children Fam

    770 So. 2d 295 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

    The appellant challenges an order by which his parental rights were terminated. Because the record reveals that the appellant was not fully informed of his right to counsel at the dependency hearing, we reverse the appealed order. See In the Interest of D.P., 595 So.2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Bellflower v. Department of Health Rehabilitative Services, 578 So.2d 827 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Miner and Allen, JJ., and Smith, Larry G., Senior Judge, Concur.

  3. Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. N.T.

    670 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 1 times

    The cases relied upon by the trial court in support of dismissal involve obvious failures on item (c)1. Thus, in Belflower v. Dep't of HRS, 578 So.2d 827 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), and In the Interest of D.P., 595 So.2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), terminations of parental rights were reversed where the parents were not informed of their right to counsel in the dependency proceedings. See also Dep't of HRS v. Zeigler, 587 So.2d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (termination petition was properly dismissed where mother was not advised of her right to counsel in the earlier dependency proceeding).

  4. In Interest of A.L.O

    637 So. 2d 15 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

    See, e.g., In the Interest of D.P., 595 So.2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); In the Interest of J.B., 624 So.2d 792 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Common sense and the law as implied in the cases cited above, mandate that all relevant evidence be considered before children are returned to their natural parents.

  5. In Interest of D.F

    622 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 9 times
    Interpreting parental rights termination statute as mandating procedural protections to fulfill court's "duty and obligation to interpret the statute so as to preserve its constitutionality"

    ยง 39.048(2)(a); Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.320; In the Interest of S.N.D. and J.D., 605 So.2d 1340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); In the Interest of D.P., 595 So.2d 62, 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In In the Interest of D.B. and D.S., 385 So.2d 83, 91 (Fla. 1980), the supreme court stated that "counsel will always be required where permanent termination of custody might result."