Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; October 7, 2005; Florida; State Appellate Court
Adoption Miracles, LLC, a licensed child-placing agency in Florida, sought review of an order that denied its motion to intervene in a dependency proceeding concerning the child S.N.W. The order also invalidated the birth mother’s consent to the adoption through Adoption Miracles. The agency filed for a writ of mandamus, prohibition, or certiorari, asserting that the order was final and thus appealable. The Department of Children and Family Services acknowledged the trial court's obligation to allow Adoption Miracles to intervene under Florida law, leading to a reversal of the order. Additionally, the Department recognized that the birth mother’s consent could not be revoked without proper notice to Adoption Miracles and a sufficient evidentiary basis showing that the consent was obtained through fraud or duress. The case highlights the necessity for procedural coordination between circuit courts when a child is involved in both dependency and private adoption proceedings. The birth mother, S.C.W., contacted Adoption Miracles to arrange for the adoption of her infant daughter, S.N.W., shortly after the child was placed in protective custody due to a positive cocaine test at birth. She executed a consent form affirming her understanding of her rights, including the ability to consult an attorney and the conditions under which she could withdraw her consent. Adoption Miracles subsequently filed a petition to terminate parental rights, noting the existence of the dependency action.
The action was filed in the East Division of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, which addresses general civil, probate, and family law cases. Adoption Miracles submitted a motion for child placement approval with prospective adoptive parents, along with a preliminary favorable home study, in accordance with Florida Statute 63.092(3). On January 10, 2005, the judge approved the child's placement, naming the prospective adoptive parents as temporary custodians pending adoption finalization. The birth mother had waived her right to notice of the adoption proceedings, leaving uncertainty about whether a hearing occurred for the order's entry, which was not enforced due to ongoing dependency proceedings.
On January 7, 2005, Adoption Miracles sought to intervene in the dependency action, aiming to dismiss the case and terminate the dependency court's jurisdiction. Their motion included the mother's consent to adoption, a petition for termination of parental rights, and the favorable home study. The motion was heard on January 13, 2005, during an adjudicatory hearing, where no testimony was taken. The birth mother expressed her change of heart regarding the adoption, and concerns were raised by her counsel and an attorney for the foster parents about the consent process. The trial court denied Adoption Miracles' intervention and set aside the birth mother’s consent, citing a lack of notification to her counsel. The status of the dependency proceedings remained unclear to Adoption Miracles due to confidentiality, but the trial court seemed inclined to advance with dependency proceedings, offering the birth mother a case plan for reunification.
Florida Statute 63.082(6) outlines that a birth parent's consent for placement with an adoption entity is valid as long as the child is in custody but parental rights are not terminated. The statute also allows the adoption entity to intervene in the dependency case and mandates the court to evaluate the prospective adoptive parents’ qualifications and the child's best interests for custody transfer.
The adoption entity is mandated to provide monthly supervision reports to the department until the adoption is finalized. In assessing whether transferring custody of a minor child to a prospective adoptive parent serves the child's best interest, the court must consider the birth parent's rights to choose an appropriate placement, the stability offered, the child's existing bonds with potential adoptive homes, and the significance of sibling relationships. The statute obligates the trial court to allow Adoption Miracles to intervene once it submitted the birth mother's consent to the adoption, and the trial court incorrectly denied this request. Additionally, the trial court improperly set aside the birth mother's consent without notifying Adoption Miracles and without evidence of fraud or duress, as required by statute. Consent is valid upon execution and can only be withdrawn if proven to have been obtained through fraud or duress. Adoption Miracles contends that the dependency court lacks authority to invalidate the birth mother’s consent, asserting that only the court handling the adoption petition has that power. However, it is clarified that the term "court" encompasses any circuit court in Florida, allowing a dependency court to evaluate the validity of a birth mother’s consent. The dependency court retains exclusive original jurisdiction over all related proceedings once a shelter or dependency petition is filed. Since both petitions were filed prior to the birth mother's consent, the child was legally in the custody of the Department, and Adoption Miracles was required to intervene in the dependency proceedings to pursue adoption. The dependency court can address the consent's validity within its proceedings while also allowing Adoption Miracles to file for termination of parental rights in another division of the same circuit court.
Proceedings in the adoption case are subordinate to dependency proceedings. The dependency court must first validate the birth mother’s consent to adoption and then confirm that the prospective adoptive parents qualify and that the adoption serves the child’s best interest, as stipulated by section 63.082(6)(c). If both conditions are satisfied, the court will place the child with the adoptive parents under the supervision of Adoption Miracles. Adoption proceedings will be paused while the dependency court makes its determination, then continue with the requirement of monthly reports from Adoption Miracles to the Department until the adoption is finalized. Once finalized, the dependency proceedings will likely be stayed or dismissed.
The matter is not one of subject matter jurisdiction, as both adoption and dependency cases are under the jurisdiction of the circuit court. The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit has divisions to handle various case types, but there are no statutory requirements on how cases must be assigned administratively. Orders from the dependency court take precedence over custody and visitation orders from other divisions, per section 39.013(4). Adoption Miracles can intervene in the dependency case under section 63.082(6)(b) due to the birth mother’s consent. Her consent cannot be withdrawn without notifying Adoption Miracles and proving it was obtained through fraud or duress.
The court reversed the order on appeal and remanded for further proceedings. The birth mother was served but did not participate, and the birth father is unknown. It is unclear if local rules allowed Adoption Miracles to file for termination of parental rights in the juvenile division before the dependency case hearing. The “best interest” determination here is unique; if the birth parent has given valid consent, the court does not compare the birth parents to prospective adoptive parents. Section 63.082(6)(d) emphasizes the birth parent's rights in making placement decisions. The court cannot compare the birth parent’s choice with other potential placements, aligning with the requirement that the analysis should affirm the appropriateness of the birth parent's choice of adoptive parents without evaluating it against alternatives.
