T.F. v. Department of Children & Family Services & Guardian ad Litem Program
Docket: No. 2D08-1291
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; April 29, 2009; Florida; State Appellate Court
The Mother appeals a final order declaring her child dependent. The Department of Children and Family Services and the Guardian ad Litem Program acknowledge that the trial court mistakenly altered the case plan goal from reunification to adoption but argue the issue is moot due to the Mother’s later surrender of her parental rights. The court finds the issue is not moot and determines that the trial court abused its discretion by 1) changing the case plan goal from reunification to adoption without proper procedure, 2) modifying the dependency order’s goal from reunification to adoption, and 3) failing to conduct a new arraignment or hold an adjudicatory hearing to ensure the Mother’s informed consent. The trial court had earlier sheltered the nine-year-old child and the Mother, who was incarcerated, consented to the dependency petition with the understanding that her case plan was aimed at reunification. However, during the disposition hearing, the court unexpectedly changed the goal to adoption, citing the Mother’s incarceration as a barrier. The Department's attorney indicated the Mother could still pursue reunification. After the court denied a motion for rehearing, the appeal followed. Both the Department and the Guardian admit the goal change was improper but contest the appeal's relevance since the Mother surrendered her rights later. The trial court's denial of the Mother's motion to withdraw her surrenders of the child is not final, as a written order reflecting this denial has not been issued, keeping her appeal time open. Under Florida appellate rules, an order is rendered only when signed and filed, and the Mother may appeal once she receives the written order. The appeal remains relevant because if her consent to surrender is reversed, it could impact current proceedings. The Department and Guardian conceded that a petition to terminate the Mother's parental rights was not filed, contrary to Section 39.621(2)(b) of Florida Statutes, which requires such a filing for adoption as a permanency goal. The trial court improperly shifted the case plan goal from reunification to adoption without the Department's intention to file a termination petition, thus abusing its discretion. Due process issues arose as the Mother’s consent to dependency did not equate to consent for a case plan aimed at adoption through termination of her parental rights. Discussions at the arraignment focused on reunification, and the Mother was misled regarding the implications of her consent. The trial court’s change of the case plan goal without re-obtaining the Mother’s informed consent or conducting an adjudicatory hearing constitutes legal error. The case is reversed and remanded for further actions consistent with this opinion.