T.C. v. State, Department of Children & Families

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 31, 2017. ________________ No. 3D17-118 Lower Tribunal No. 15-16232 ________________ T.C., the Child, Petitioner, vs. State of Florida, Department of Children and Families, et al., Respondents. A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Steven D. Robinson, Judge. Douthit Law, LLC, and Marc Anthony Douthit, for petitioner. Karla Perkins, for Department of Children & Families; Eugene F. Zenobi, Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Third Region, and Kevin Coyle Colbert, Assistant Regional Counsel, for V.M., the mother; Laura J. Lee (Sanford), for Guardian ad Litem Program, for respondents. Before SUAREZ, C.J., and SALTER and LOGUE, JJ. CONFESSION OF ERROR SUAREZ, C.J. The minor Petitioner, T.C., petitions for certiorari review of the lower court’s order entered January 9, 2017, pursuant to a termination of services [TOS] hearing in the dependency case, which ordered Petitioner to be involuntarily placed in a residential treatment facility at Family Center for Recovery. On consideration of the confessions of error by Respondents, the Department of Children and Families and the Guardian ad Litem, we grant the petition and quash the January 9, 2017 order on appeal. The January 9, 2017 hearing was only noticed for a termination of services, but the Department of Children and Families proceeded to have heard the placement of the Petitioner into a residential treatment program. The Respondents concede that the Petitioner’s due process rights were violated because she was not provided prior notice that the TOS hearing would result in the order for residential treatment to address substance abuse and mental health issues. We decline to quash the September 26, 2016 order derived from the Marchman Act petition as the Minor failed to timely challenge that order within thirty days of rendition. We do not reach the minor’s conflict of interest arguments regarding the Office of Regional Counsel. We therefore quash the trial court’s January 9, 2017 Order and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith. 2