In Re IDM
Docket: 2D00-1230
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; December 14, 2000; Florida; State Appellate Court
V.M. (the Mother) appeals the trial court's refusal to allow her to withdraw her consent to the dependency of her minor child, I.D.M., and the subsequent adjudication of I.D.M. as dependent. The appellate court reverses the trial court's decision, finding that it did not determine whether the Mother’s consent was given voluntarily and with a full understanding of its consequences, as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.325(c). This rule mandates that the court must make specific findings regarding the voluntariness of consent, the understanding of the allegations, and the potential consequences, and these findings must be incorporated into the court's order alongside the factual basis for dependency. The appellate court notes that the trial court failed to question the Mother about her understanding of the allegations and the consequences of her consent, despite her being represented by counsel. The mere presence of the Mother at the hearing did not suffice to establish that her consent was knowing and voluntary. Citing precedent, the court emphasizes the necessity of adhering to the required procedural standards. As the trial court did not comply with Rule 8.325(c), the appellate court reverses the orders denying the Mother’s motion to withdraw her consent and adjudicating I.D.M. as dependent, and remands the case for further proceedings. Judges Fulmer and Green concur with the decision.