robertlathamesq.org

Category: Case Law Updates

  • For the Department: A Complete Failure of Proof

    It is very difficult to prove X when you only present testimony that not-X is true. S.T. v. DCF, GALP, — So. 3d —-, 2012 WL 1698760 (Fla 2nd DCA 2012).

  • 9th Circuit Rules CAPTA GAL Requirement Not Privately Enforceable

    As the district court observed, Nevada does have a law directing state courts to appoint a guardian ad litem for every eligible child. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 432B.500(1) (“After a petition is filed that a child is in need of protection . . . the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for the child.”). But courts do not…

  • Second DCA En Banc Clarifies TPR Nexus Requirement, Concurrence Dissects LRM

    The Second DCA issued an incredible en banc opinion yesterday, clarifying its nexus requirements for TPR of siblings. In re Z.C., — So.3d —-, 2012 WL 1605425 (Fla. 2nd DCA). Authored by Chief Judge Silberman (joined by seven other judges), the opinion holds: DCF argues that the nexus test applied by this court is something different…

  • SIJ Status Granted on Abandonment

    These opinions can be difficult to find, so I’m copying the lengthy relevant language here: Finally, USCIS will consent to a grant of SIJ classification upon a determination that the request is bona fide. See Section 101(a)(27)(J)(iii) of the Act; TVPRA – SIJ Provisions Memo at 3. The director questioned the juvenile court’s finding of abandonment based on evidence…

  • SIJ Status Denied Because of Bad Juvenile Court Findings

    However, the [Nebraska] juvenile court did not make a finding that the petitioner’s reunification with one or both of his parents “is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law,” as required by section 101(a)(27)(J)(i) of the Act. Although the temporary guardianship order indicated that the petitioner “may be…

  • What do psychological orders have to do?

    Orders for psychological evaluation must state the time, place, manner, and scope of the evaluation.  K.K. v. Department of Children and Family Services, — So.3d —-, 2012 WL 1449413 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2012).  

  • Somewhere Between Henderson and M.M.: TPR’ing for Poverty

    The trial court found that the Father breached his case plan in four material aspects: (1) intentionally absconding to Oklahoma, (2) concealing the fact of his relocation to Oklahoma, (3) failing to obtain approved housing, and (4) continuing to neglect N.R.-G. despite the completion of parenting classes. Because these breaches did not pose any danger to N.R.-G.’s well-being and…

  • “At the core of the intent of the rule is the child’s right to be present.”

    Upon consideration, we adopt the amendments to rule 8.255(b) as proposed by the Committee in its revised proposal. The amendments address the right of a child to be present at all hearings in dependency and termination of parental rights proceedings, as well as the duty of the trial judge to make the appropriate best interest…

  • Haste Makes Waste – Insufficient Orders Reversed and Remanded

    As predicted, both of these orders got reversed. Insufficient dependency order reversed and remanded: A.F. v. DCF, — So. 3d —- (Fla. 3rd DCA 2012). Oral argument here. Dependency orders require specific findings, not just a list of witnesses. Insufficient permanent guardianship order reversed and remanded: M.G. v. DCF, — So. 3d —- (Fla. 3rd DCA). Oral argument…

  • Egregious Failure to Believe

    K.G. argues that there is insufficient evidence of egregious conduct. She claims that the father never showed frustration or anger toward the child. K.G. also points to the conflicting medical testimony about the cause of the injuries. Instead of termination, K.G. wants a case plan with a goal of reunification. For the well-being of this…