J. B., Mother of: D. L., Minor Child v. Department of Children and Families
158 So. 3d 653
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- DCF removed D.L. from mother J.B. in March 2011 for alleged drug use, unstable housing, and arrest; child adjudicated dependent by consent in June 2011 and a reunification case plan was adopted.
- DCF petitioned to terminate parental rights in February 2012 asserting abandonment, failure to comply with case plan (drug treatment, parenting, psych evals, UA/hair tests, GED, housing, income, contact).
- Trial occurred July 2013 after mother’s counsel sought a late continuance and repeatedly stated he was exhausted and unprepared; the court denied the continuance and proceeded.
- Evidence at trial included investigator and case manager testimony about noncompliance, psychological evaluations concluding long‑term parental deficits, therapist and foster parent testimony about the child’s harm, and the guardian ad litem’s recommendation for termination.
- Mother raised ineffective assistance of counsel for the first time on appeal, alleging numerous trial errors and omissions; the trial court entered a final judgment terminating parental rights by clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Strickland standard applies to ineffective assistance claims in termination proceedings | Strickland should not control; family law context differs | Strickland applies as adopted by the First DCA previously | Court holds Strickland applies and certifies question to supreme court |
| Whether counsel’s on‑record performance (continuance request, admissions of exhaustion, misc. trial tactics) was ineffectively prejudicial | Counsel’s failures and admissions deprived mother of effective assistance and prejudiced outcome | Record does not show deficient performance caused reasonable probability of different result; many actions were tactical or cumulative | Mother cannot show ineffective assistance on the face of the record; claim fails |
| Whether procedural mechanism exists to develop ineffective assistance claims not apparent on face of record | Appellant argues current rules inadequately allow development of record for such claims on appeal | DCF notes existing remedies are limited and impractical; trial counsel unlikely to move against self; habeas is impractical | Court expresses concern, urges rulemaking; certifies question whether post‑termination procedure exists |
| Whether specific alleged omissions (failure to file witness list, failure to move for dismissal, not objecting to hearsay, not pursuing relative placement) required reversal | Each omission prejudiced mother’s case and denied fair process | Omissions either had tactical explanations, were not prejudicial, or evidence was cumulative; mother failed to show specific prejudice | Court finds no indisputable prejudice or record‑apparent ineffectiveness; termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑pronged ineffective assistance standard)
- L.W. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 812 So. 2d 551 (First DCA applied Strickland standard in dependency context)
- In re E.K., 33 So. 3d 125 (discusses raising ineffective assistance in termination/dependency proceedings)
- E.T. v. State, Dep’t of Children & Families, 930 So. 2d 721 (addresses limits on habeas and procedure for ineffective assistance claims)
- L.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 995 So. 2d 583 (noting record often insufficient on direct appeal to resolve ineffectiveness claims)
- Corzo v. State, 806 So. 2d 642 (describes standard for when ineffectiveness is obvious on the record)
- S.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 851 So. 2d 689 (supreme court decision discussed in relation to prior First DCA authority)
- Interest of D.B., 385 So. 2d 83 (constitutional right to appointed counsel in termination proceedings)