J.B., Etc. v. Florida Department of Children and Families
170 So. 3d 780, 2015 Fla. LEXIS 1473, 40 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 416 (2015)
Rule of Law:
Indigent parents in termination of parental rights proceedings have a constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel; however, to set aside a judgment, the parent must prove that counsel's performance was deficient and that, but for this deficiency, the termination of rights would not have occurred.
Facts:
- J.B. (Mother) was seventeen years old when her child, D.L., was born in 2009.
- In early 2011, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) investigated allegations that the Mother was abusing drugs and living in a crack house.
- DCF removed the child from the Mother's custody after finding she was unstable, violated a safety plan, and had left the child with strangers at a homeless shelter.
- The Mother failed to substantially comply with her case plan, which required drug treatment, parenting courses, and stable housing.
- During the termination trial, the Mother's court-appointed attorney stated he was 'really exhausted,' not prepared to go forward, and admitted he might be doing things wrong because he couldn't 'think straight.'
- The Mother's attorney failed to file a witness list, failed to cross-examine certain witnesses effectively, and did not pursue claims that relative placement was available.
- Testimony established that the Mother had mental health issues including PTSD and antisocial personality disorder, and that the child suffered nightmares after visiting her.
Procedural Posture:
- DCF filed a dependency petition in the Circuit Court (trial court).
- The Circuit Court adjudicated the child dependent.
- DCF filed a petition for termination of parental rights (TPR) in the Circuit Court.
- The Circuit Court entered a final judgment terminating the Mother's parental rights.
- The Mother appealed to the First District Court of Appeal, raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for the first time.
- The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the termination but certified questions of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the constitutional right to counsel for indigent parents in termination of parental rights proceedings include the right to effective assistance of counsel, and if so, is the standard for ineffectiveness the same as the 'Strickland' standard used in criminal cases?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, the court declined to adopt the exact criminal law standard, but Yes, it held that the right to counsel implies a right to effective assistance. The Court reasoned that while the right to counsel in termination proceedings derives from the Due Process Clause of the Florida Constitution rather than the Sixth Amendment, the right would be meaningless if counsel were not required to be effective. However, the Court determined that the standard from Strickland v. Washington was not entirely appropriate because of the unique interest in the child's permanency. Consequently, the Court established a stricter standard requiring the parent to prove that the outcome would have been different 'but for' the attorney's errors. Applying this standard, the Court found J.B. failed to show that her attorney's fatigue or errors actually changed the result of the case given the overwhelming evidence of abandonment and neglect.
Concurring - Justice Pariente
Yes, the Justice agreed with the holding but wrote separately to emphasize the tension between parental rights and the child's best interests. Justice Pariente expressed concern that creating a process for ineffective assistance claims could delay permanency and adoption for children, leaving them in 'legal limbo.' She argued that trial judges must be active participants in monitoring counsel's performance during the proceedings to prevent these issues from arising after a judgment is already entered.
Analysis:
This decision is significant because it explicitly creates a substantive right to effective counsel in civil termination of parental rights (TPR) cases in Florida, closing a gap where counsel was provided but quality was previously unreviewable. However, by rejecting the Strickland 'confidence in the outcome' prejudice standard in favor of a stricter 'but-for' causation standard, the Court prioritized the finality of judgments and the child's need for permanency. The ruling effectively makes it very difficult for parents to overturn TPR orders based on lawyer error unless the case was extremely close. The decision also necessitated the creation of a new, expedited procedural rule to handle these claims quickly.
Unlock the full brief for J.B., Etc. v. Florida Department of Children and Families