A.M., THE MOTHER v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES
223 So. 3d 312
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Child sheltered after mother experienced a psychotic episode and was involuntarily committed; child later adjudicated dependent.
- DCF petitioned to terminate mother’s parental rights based on failure to follow case plan (refusal to take medication), abandonment, and being a threat to the child.
- Mother was declared incompetent in an unrelated criminal proceeding approximately two months before the termination trial; that court found substantial probability she might regain competence in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- Mother’s counsel moved to continue the termination trial until the mother regained competence; trial court denied the continuance.
- At trial the mother was non-responsive; the court terminated her parental rights. Mother appealed only the procedural due process/continuance rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (A.M.) | Defendant's Argument (DCF/GAL) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process requires postponing a TPR trial until parent is competent | Trial court violated due process by trying TPR while mother was incompetent | TPR need not await competence where child’s interest in permanency and statutory protections reduce risk of error | Court: No due process violation; trial may proceed despite unrelated incompetency |
| Whether denial of continuance was an abuse of discretion | Continuance required until mother regained competence | Denial proper given lack of assurance of regained competence, child’s need for permanency, and rule’s extraordinary-circumstances standard | Court: No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (framework for balancing interests in procedural due process)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (applying Mathews balancing to termination of parental rights)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standards for appointed counsel in criminal appeals; cited regarding inapplicability to TPR)
- N.S.H. v. Florida Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 843 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 2003) (parental rights are fundamental but termination procedures differ from criminal protections)
- J.B. v. Florida Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 170 So. 3d 780 (Fla. 2015) (emphasis on child’s interest in timeliness and permanency in TPR context)
- In re M.M.L., 393 P.3d 1079 (Nev. 2017) (upholding proceeding with TPR despite parent’s incompetency under Mathews balancing)