M.M. v. K.P. ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                  NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
    MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
    IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
    OF FLORIDA
    SECOND DISTRICT
    In the Interest of D.P., III, a child.   )
    )
    )
    M.M.,                                    )
    )
    Appellant,                )
    )
    v.                                       )             Case No. 2D16-4982
    )
    K.P.,                                    )
    )
    Appellee.                 )
    )
    Opinion filed October 25, 2017.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court for
    Hillsborough County; Tracy Sheehan,
    Judge.
    Ita M. Neymotin, Regional Counsel,
    Fort Myers, and Joseph Thye Sexton,
    Assistant Regional Counsel, Bartow,
    for Appellant.
    Jeanne T. Tate and Erica T. Healey
    of Jeanne T. Tate, P.A., Tampa,
    for Appellee.
    WALLACE, Judge.
    M.M., the Birth Mother, appeals from a judgment terminating her parental
    rights to her one child in conjunction with a proceeding for a stepparent adoption under
    chapter 63, Florida Statutes (2016). Because the trial court erred by failing to rule on
    the Birth Mother's timely filed motion for appointment of counsel, we reverse the
    judgment and remand for a new proceeding.
    I. THE FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    Because we reverse on a narrow procedural ground, a detailed recitation
    of the underlying facts is unnecessary. It suffices to say that, following the dissolution of
    the marriage of the Birth Mother and the child's father in 2013, the Birth Mother
    absconded with the child, was eventually apprehended, and is now serving a sentence
    of five years' imprisonment for illegally removing the child from the state. Following the
    dissolution of marriage, the father married K.P., the appellee Stepmother.
    The Stepmother petitioned for termination of the Birth Mother's parental
    rights and for adoption of the child in August 2016, alleging various grounds, including
    abandonment of the child resulting from the Birth Mother's incarceration. The clerk of
    the circuit court issued a summons to the Birth Mother, attaching the petition; the
    summons was personally served on the Birth Mother at her prison. The summons
    recited that the Birth Mother would have twenty days to respond to the petition, failing
    which a default would be entered against her. The summons additionally notified her of
    her right to counsel:
    If you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in this
    matter, you may be entitled to a court-appointed attorney.
    Only persons determined to be indigent are entitled to an
    attorney who is court-appointed. If you desire counsel and
    believe you may be entitled to representation by a court-
    appointed attorney, you must contact the Office of the Clerk
    of Court and request that an "Affidavit of Indigent Status" be
    mailed to you. That affidavit must be completed and
    returned to the Office of the Clerk of Court for review and a
    determination of whether you are indigent. You should act
    -2-
    immediately in submitting a request for counsel and copy
    your request on Petitioner so that any request can be
    promptly addressed.
    The summons announced that the hearing on the petition was set for October 6, 2016,
    and informed the Birth Mother that, if incarcerated, she should make arrangements with
    her classification officer to attend the hearing. The summons recited the hearing judge's
    name and phone number and concluded with this warning written in all-caps:
    Under sections 63.087 and 63.089, Florida Statutes, failure
    to timely file a written response to this notice and the petition
    with the court and to personally appear at this hearing
    scheduled on the petition constitutes grounds upon which
    the court shall end any parental rights you may have or
    assert regarding the minor child.
    The return of service reflects service of the petition on the Birth Mother at
    her prison on August 26, 2016. Therefore, the deadline for serving a response to the
    petition would have been September 15, 2016. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(a) (requiring
    that "a defendant must serve an answer within 20 days after service of original process
    and the initial pleading"); Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.140 (same deadline). The Stepmother
    filed a motion for default on September 16, the twenty-first day after service of the
    summons, and the clerk entered a default that day.
    The Birth Mother mailed a motion for extension of time to respond that
    was filed in the circuit court on September 22, 2016. The Birth Mother did not state a
    date in her certificate of service of this motion, nor was a prison date stamp affixed to
    the face of the motion. As a result, we cannot determine with certainty whether this
    motion was served within the twenty-day deadline set by the rules. In her motion, the
    Birth Mother acknowledged that she had been served with the summons on August 26;
    -3-
    the Birth Mother also asserted that she had sent a request for an indigency application
    on that date, which she had not received.1
    Also filed in the trial court on September 22 was the Birth Mother's motion
    for appointment of counsel. This motion has a certificate of service dated September
    14, 2016, one day before the twenty-day deadline for service of a response to the
    petition.2 The record on appeal does not contain any orders disposing of the Birth
    Mother's motion for extension of time or motion for appointment of counsel, and the
    docket sheet attached to the record does not reflect any orders ruling on these motions.
    The judgment on appeal does not address the motions either.
    On September 23, 2016, the Birth Mother served from prison her
    response to the petition, which was filed with the clerk on September 30. In her
    response, the Birth Mother acknowledges the court's jurisdiction and the underlying
    historical facts but denies the Stepmother's allegations made against her.
    The Birth Mother's response is followed chronologically in the record by
    the final judgment of termination of parental rights, as well as a final judgment of
    1
    The record on appeal does not include a request for an indigency
    application, and the docket attached to the record does not list it. The Birth Mother did
    not attach a copy of it to the motion for extension of time.
    2
    We note that the mailbox rule for prisoners applies to civil as well as
    criminal cases. See Scullock v. Gee, 
    133 So. 3d 1208
    , 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); see
    also Griffin v. Sistuenck, 
    816 So. 2d 600
    , 601 (Fla. 2002) ("Under the mailbox rule, a
    notice is deemed filed when it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing."). In light of
    the mailbox rule and the Birth Mother's known status as a state prisoner, the better
    practice for the Stepmother would have been to allow at least five days after the
    twentieth day from the service of the summons for a response from the Birth Mother to
    arrive in the clerk's office by mail.
    -4-
    stepparent adoption,3 both rendered on October 6, 2016. The termination judgment
    begins by reciting that the case "came to be heard on October 6, 2016,"4 and that the
    Birth Mother "failed to appear (telephonically) at the hearing, despite being given an
    opportunity to do so." The court found further that the Birth Mother had not filed an
    indigency application, that she had failed to respond timely to the petition, that a clerk's
    default had been entered against her, that she was entitled to no further notice of the
    proceedings, and that she "has been deemed to have admitted the well-pled allegations
    of the [p]etition." The court terminated the Birth Mother's parental rights, finding that
    doing so was in the child's best interests and was the least restrictive means of
    protecting the child.5 The final judgment of stepparent adoption entered on the same
    day declares the child to be the legal child of the Stepmother, with the father retaining
    his parental rights.
    II. DISCUSSION
    The petition in the trial court was brought under chapter 63, which governs
    adoptions. Unlike chapter 39, Florida Statutes (2016), governing juvenile dependency,
    3
    The judgment of stepparent adoption is not on appeal.
    4
    There is no hearing transcript in the record. Because the error for which
    we reverse is apparent on the face of the record, this circumstance does not affect our
    disposition of the appeal. See Chirino v. Chirino, 
    710 So. 2d 696
    , 697 (Fla. 2d DCA
    1998) ("[E]ven where the appellant fails to provide a transcript, the absence of a
    transcript does not preclude reversal where an error of law is apparent on the face of
    the judgment.").
    5
    The termination judgment recites sixteen bases for termination,
    reproducing verbatim the list found in the father's "affidavit of inquiry" attached to and
    referenced in the Stepmother's petition.
    The Birth Mother untimely filed a motion for rehearing challenging the
    termination judgment, triggering a series of filings from both parties, none of which is
    relevant to our disposition of this appeal.
    -5-
    which has an explicit requirement that counsel be provided for indigent parents,6 the
    sections of chapter 63 governing the termination of parental rights, see, e.g., §§ 63.063,
    .087-.089, include no such provision. Nevertheless, under both the federal and Florida
    constitutions, the Birth Mother had a right to representation by counsel at the
    termination hearing and, if found indigent, the right to court-appointed counsel. See In
    re D.B., 
    385 So. 2d 83
    , 90-91 (Fla. 1980) (holding in a dependency case "that counsel is
    necessarily required under the due process clause of the United States and Florida
    Constitutions, in proceedings involving the permanent termination of parental rights to a
    child" and that "where permanent termination or child abuse charges might result,
    counsel must be appointed for . . . the natural married or divorced indigent parents of
    the child"); G.C. v. W.J., 
    917 So. 2d 998
    , 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (holding that
    "[a]lthough it is true that chapter 63, unlike chapter 39, does not expressly provide for
    appointed counsel, such an entitlement is inherent where fundamental parental rights
    are subject to termination;" and reversing for the trial court to verify the appellant's
    affidavit of indigency and "appoint him counsel if he qualifies"); cf. O.A.H. v. R.L.A., 
    712 So. 2d 4
    , 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that, under a former provision in chapter 63, "an
    indigent legal parent is entitled to appointed counsel in an adoption proceeding that
    involves the involuntary termination of his or her parental rights"); see also
    § 27.511(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016) ("The office of criminal conflict and civil regional
    counsel has primary responsibility for representing persons entitled to court-appointed
    6
    § 39.807(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016) ("At each stage of the proceeding under
    this part [part X, 'Termination of Parental Rights'], the court shall advise the parent of
    the right to have counsel present. The court shall appoint counsel for indigent
    parents.").
    -6-
    counsel under the Federal or State Constitution or as authorized by general law in civil
    proceedings, including, but not limited to . . . proceedings to terminate parental rights
    under chapter 63."); § 27.40(2)(a) ("Private counsel shall be appointed to represent
    persons in those cases in which provision is made for court-appointed counsel but the
    office of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel is unable to provide representation
    due to a conflict of interest.").
    The Birth Mother argues that the trial court erred by not addressing her
    motion for appointment of counsel, which, she contends, would likely have been
    granted.7 The Stepmother counters that the Birth Mother was not entitled to appointed
    counsel because she had not established indigency by the date of the final hearing. As
    the parties' arguments reflect, the issue here is not the Birth Mother's right to counsel.
    Rather, the issue is whether the Birth Mother properly invoked that right and whether
    the trial court was required to address her motion for appointment of counsel before
    proceeding with the termination hearing.
    We conclude that the trial court erred in failing to address the Birth
    Mother's motion for appointment of counsel. Two reasons support this conclusion.
    First, although the Birth Mother failed to comply with the summons' instruction to
    request from and file with the clerk of the circuit court an "Affidavit of Indigent Status,"8
    7
    The Birth Mother raises a second argument, which we need not address;
    the second argument is mooted by the resolution of her first argument concerning the
    appointment of counsel.
    8
    The formal title of this form is "Application for Determination of Civil
    Indigent Status." In re Approval of Application for Determination of Indigent Status
    Forms for Use by Clerks and Amendment to Fla. Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.984, 
    969 So. 2d 285
    , 287-88 (Fla. 2007).
    -7-
    and to "act immediately,"9 the Birth Mother timely filed a motion for appointment of
    counsel. The Birth Mother not only served the motion within the twenty-day time limit
    required by the rules for serving a response to the petition, but she also physically filed
    the motion two weeks before the scheduled termination hearing. See Fla. R. Civ. P.
    1.140(a); Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.140; cf. 
    G.C., 917 So. 2d at 999
    n.1 ("Appellant's first [of
    two] request[s for appointment of counsel] was made two days before the hearing on
    the petition to terminate his parental rights.").
    Second, we recognize that "it is generally necessary [in a civil proceeding]
    to bring a pending matter to the trial court's attention by having it noticed for hearing,"
    Al-Hakim v. State, 
    783 So. 2d 293
    , 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (emphasis added).
    However, in an adoption proceeding such as the one under review that involves the
    involuntary termination of parental rights under chapter 63, the trial court errs when it
    fails to comply "with the dictates of O.A.H. by making an inquiry as to whether the
    [parent] would qualify for court-appointed counsel and, if so, offering him [or her]
    representation." M.G.C. v. M.C., 
    899 So. 2d 486
    , 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Accordingly,
    it was unnecessary for the Birth Mother to take any extra steps to have her motion
    addressed by the court. Indeed, the language of the summons would lead a recipient to
    believe that a request for counsel would be addressed upon the mere filing of the
    request.10 Furthermore, a quick perusal of the docket by the trial court before the
    9
    We note that the Birth Mother asserted in her motion that she had
    attempted to comply with the procedure outlined in the summons.
    10
    We note that the simplest resolution of the motion would have been a
    denial without prejudice to the Birth Mother to file an indigency application with the clerk
    within a reasonable time, after which the court would rule on the motion.
    -8-
    termination hearing would have disclosed the pending motion for counsel as well as the
    Birth Mother's motion for an extension of time to respond to the petition.
    We reject the Stepmother's argument that any error associated with the
    trial court's failure to appoint counsel is harmless. The First District Court of Appeal
    disposed of a similar argument in the context of a dependency case as follows:
    The Department has argued that the father failed to
    preserve arguments concerning the right to counsel as he
    did not request counsel during the shelter hearing.
    However, the statutory scheme and rule cited above indicate
    it is the responsibility of the trial court to ensure the parent's
    right to counsel is respected, not the parent. Moreover,
    violations of the right to counsel are considered fundamental
    error which can be addressed for the first time on appeal.
    See State v. DiGuilio, 
    491 So. 2d 1129
    , 1137 (Fla. 1986)
    (stating "[d]enial of counsel is always harmful, regardless of
    the strength of admissible evidence, and can be properly
    categorized as per se reversible [error]").
    A.G. v. Fla. Dep't of Children & Families, 
    65 So. 3d 1180
    , 1183 n.1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
    (alterations in original) (emphasis added). We conclude that the principle should be no
    different for a chapter 63 termination case. See 
    O.A.H., 712 So. 2d at 4
    ; G.C., 
    917 So. 2d
    at 999. We also reject the Stepmother's argument that the appointment-of-counsel
    issue is a moot point because the Birth Mother failed to appear telephonically at the
    termination hearing. The motion for appointment of counsel preceded the termination
    hearing procedurally and chronologically; had the motion been appropriately resolved,
    the failure to appear would not likely have occurred.
    III. CONCLUSION
    In conclusion, we reverse the final judgment of termination of parental
    rights and remand for a new hearing. As the trial court has already appointed counsel
    for the Birth Mother for purposes of this appeal based on an Application for
    -9-
    Determination of Civil Indigent Status approved by the clerk of the circuit court, the trial
    court shall appoint counsel for the proceedings on remand. The trial court shall also
    vacate the clerk's default. In addition, although the point is not formally before us, our
    reversal of the termination judgment will necessarily require the vacation of the final
    judgment of stepparent adoption.
    Reversed and remanded with instructions.
    MORRIS and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
    - 10 -