Case ID: so3d_176/html/1026-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

S.G. mother of K. H., minor child, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    No. 1D15-3430.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Nov. 2, 2015.
    
      Robert W. Keep, Jr., Office of Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, Region One, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
    Trida L. Meisner, Managing Attorney, Children’s Legal Services, Jacksonville; Stephanie C. Zimmerman, Statewide Appeals Director, Children’s Legal Services, Bradenton, for Appellee.
    David P. Krupski, Appellate Counsel, Guardian ad Litem Program, Sanford.
   PER CURIAM.

S.G. appeals an order adjudicating her child dependent and requiring her to comply with a case plan. At the arraignment hearing, the lower tribunal entered a consent by default for the mother, finding she was properly noticed of the arraignment hearing but failed to appear. On appeal, S.G. argues the lower tribunal denied her due process when it ordered her to comply with a case plan at the arraignment hearing without providing notice that adjudication or disposition of the petition would occur. We accept the Department of Children and Families’ concession of error on this point, and reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with Chapter 39, Florida Statutes. See J.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 890 So.2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); see also Dep’t of Children & Families v. T.S., 154 So.3d 1223, 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“An arraignment provides the opportunity ‘for the parent- or legal custodian to admit, deny, or consent to findings of dependency alleged in the petition.’ § 39.506(1) — (2), Fla. Stat. (2014). Depending on the parents’ response, a disposition hearing will be held within fifteen or thirty days of the arraignment hearing. Id.”). Because this issue is dispositive, we do not address the second issue S.G. raises on appeal.

BENTON, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.