K.M., The Father v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES
K.M., The Father v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES
Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT K.M., the father, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD LITEM, Appellees.
No. 4D19-3036 [February 26, 2020] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Robert B. Meadows, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562018DP000089.
Ryan Thomas Truskoski of Ryan Thomas Truskoski, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.
Andrew Feigenbaum of Children’s Legal Services, West Palm Beach, for appellee Department of Children & Families.
Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Laura J. Lee, Senior Attorney, Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.
PER CURIAM.
The Department removed the child, O.M., from the mother based entirely on injuries sustained by O.M.’s half-sibling, A.M. After the trial court denied termination of parental rights as to the half-sibling, the trial court dismissed the dependency proceedings against O.M. and returned the child to the mother. On appeal, O.M.’s father, K.M., claims that his due process rights were violated. We disagree and find that no violation of due process occurred. K.M. was notified of all hearings and participated in the proceedings below. Further, O.M. was taken from the mother and not K.M., who lived out-of-state. However, we agree that remand is necessary to correct a scrivener’s error in the amended final judgment, which incorrectly named M.M., rather than K.M., as O.M.’s father. 1 Affirmed and remanded.
LEVINE, C.J., GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
1Our affirmance in no way prejudices or prejudges K.M.’s rights as a father to O.M.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.