C.K. v. Department of Children & Family Services, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6989

C.K. seeks a writ of certiorari contesting a dependency drug court no-contact order against him.
The petition is treated as an appeal from a nonfinal injunction order under Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(B).
DCF concedes error because C.K. had no notice of the interim hearing where the order was issued and no opportunity to be heard.
The drug court issued the no-contact order after an interim hearing held without C.K.’s or counsel’s notice or presence.
C.K. learned of the order when served at the continued first-appearance hearing; the court provided no explanation for the basis of the restriction.
The court ultimately held that the procedural due process rights and notice requirements were violated and reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether lack of notice violated due process for the no-contact order	C.K. was denied notice and opportunity to be heard	DCF concedes error and that notice was required	Yes; due process and notice were violated; reverse and remand

Douglas v. Johnson, 65 So.3d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (abuse of discretion standard applies to notice/ Hearing in dependency)
Borden v. Guardianship of Borden-Moore, 818 So.2d 604 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (due process requires fair notice and opportunity to be heard)
Keys Citizens for Responsible Gov’t, Inc. v. Fla. Keys Aqueduct Auth., 795 So.2d 940 (Fla.2001) (notice must convey required information and allow reasonable time to appear)
L.C. v. A.M.C., 67 So.3d 1181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (procedural due process in injunctions requires notice/hearing)
Douglas v. Johnson, 65 So.3d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (see above)
Smith v. Smith, 964 So.2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (notice/hearing requirements in dependency proceedings)
Dep’t of Children & Families v. D.B.D., 42 So.3d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (due process considerations in dependency cases)
Brooks v. Barrett, 694 So.2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (notice or hearing required for injunction actions)