In Re Tj
59 So. 3d 1187
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Immigrant Children's Justice Clinic, as next friends of T.J., appeal a circuit court’s summary denial of their amended petition for adjudication of dependency for T.J.
- T.J. was born in Turks and Caicos, came to Florida at four months old, and has lived in Florida since; her mother died in 2004 and her father’s whereabouts are unknown after diligent search.
- After the mother’s death, T.J. has been cared for by her aunt, who lacks any judicially-conferred custodian or guardian status.
- The trial court denied the dependency petition and suggested a family court petition for custody; it also denied consideration of two diligent-search affidavits.
- The Fourth and Fifth District Courts of Appeal (F.L.M. and L.T.) provide a framework permitting dependency where a child has no parent or legal custodian capable of care; the court reverses to apply that framework.
- There is a dueling view on the sufficiency of the diligent-search affidavits; the majority finds them insufficient under §39.503, while a dissenter would deem them sufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether T.J. qualifies as dependent under §39.01(15)(e) where no parent or custodian is capable of providing care | T.J. has prima facie dependency since no parent or custodian is able to supervise or care for her. | Aunt is not a parent or legal custodian; dependency should not be declared to bypass custody mechanisms. | Yes; dependency is warranted on remand under §39.01(15)(e) based on no capable parent or custodian. |
| Whether the circuit court erred by summarily denying the amended petition without proper dependency showing | F.L.M. and L.T. support finding dependency where no parent or custodian exists. | The court acted within discretion due to lack of custodian and unresolved parentage. | Yes; order reversed and remanded for further dependency proceedings. |
| Whether the two affidavits of diligent search satisfy §39.503(6) minimum requirements | Affidavits, though filed by clinic, meet sufficient diligence given attempts to locate the father and support from relatives. | Affidavits fail to meet statutory specifics; additional diligent-search steps are required. | No; affidavits fail to satisfy §39.503(6); remand for proper diligent search required |
| Whether §39.503(5) best interests exception allows proceeding without notice despite unknown father | Best interests support proceeding without further notice if location unknown. | Procedural protections require diligent search and notice where possible. | Yes; best interests do not authorize bypassing diligent search and notice; proper search required. |
| Whether the affidavits were sufficient to permit an adjudication of dependency on remand | Diligent-search record supports dependency on remand. | Affidavits insufficient; a proper diligent search is essential before dependency adjudication. | No; on this record, affidavits insufficient; remand contingent on proper diligent search. |
Key Cases Cited
- F.L.M. v. Department of Children & Families, 912 So.2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (dependency exists when child has no parent or custodian; supports petition)
- L.T. v. Department of Children & Families, 48 So.3d 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (progression from orphan to dependent when no custodian; supports relief)
- In re T.R.F., 741 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (affidavits must meet strict diligent-search requirements)