R.L. v. W.G.
147 So. 3d 1054
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- DCF petitioned to terminate the mother’s parental rights; the mother allowed her cousin, W.G., to seek to adopt C.M.
- Trial court found W.G. qualified to adopt and ordered C.M.’s placement changed from the former foster parents to W.G.
- Court also found the new placement was the least restrictive, most appropriate family-like setting consistent with C.M.’s best interests.
- Former foster parents moved to intervene and set aside the placement change, seeking to adopt C.M. and her half-siblings.
- Mother consented to placement with an adoption entity; the consent was valid and enforceable under Florida law.
- The court distinguished prior case law (I.B.) and affirmed the trial court’s denial of intervention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the former foster parents have standing to intervene? | R.L. and J.M. contend they may intervene due to potential adoption interests and bonds with C.M. | State argues no pending adoption petition and no foster-license basis specific to C.M., so no standing. | No standing to intervene; I.B. distinguished; affirmed denial. |
| Was the transfer of custody to the prospective adoptive parent proper? | Foster parents urge preservation of existing placement pending their own adoption efforts. | Once the prospective parent is qualified and the transfer is in the child’s best interests, transfer is mandatory. | Transfer to the qualified prospective adoptive parent was proper. |
| Did the court properly rely on best interests and statutory framework in denying intervention? | Requests intervention to protect potential parental interests fail to override best-interests analysis. | Best interests findings supported the placement and precluded intervention. | Trial court’s best-interests findings supported denying intervention. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.N.W., 912 So.2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (cites parents’ right to care, custody, and control; limits intervention as applicable)
- I.B. v. Department of Children & Families, 876 So.2d 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (standing to intervene based on pending adoption petition or special license)
- R.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 988 So.2d 673 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (I.B. merely required evidentiary hearing on child’s best interests)
- D.C. v. J.M., 133 So.3d 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (quashing order allowing foster parents to intervene)
- In re C.W.W., 788 So.2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (recognizes parents’ constitutional right to care, custody, and control)