Guardian ad Litem Program v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 29 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5D22-0217 |
| Citation | 348 So.3d 1177 |
| Parties | GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, Petitioner, v. Sarah CAMPBELL, Adoption Entity, and Department of Children and Families, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Laura J. Lee, Assistant Director of Appeals, of Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.
Sarah Campbell, of Jay & Campbell, PLLC, Stuart, for Respondent, Sarah Campbell, Adoption Entity.
Kelly Schaeffer, of Children's Legal Services, Bradenton, for Respondent, Department of Children and Families.
In this termination of parental rights proceeding, the Guardian Ad Litem Program petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash an order that transferred custody of J.G., a now three-year-old child (the "Child"), to the prospective adoptive parents chosen by the natural parents. We find that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law1 when ordering the transfer of custody and that this error presents an immediate threat of irreparable harm to the Child.
In March 2019, the Child was sheltered by the Department of Children and Families ("the Department") when he was five days old due to his parents’ substance abuse and mental health issues. The Child was initially placed with his maternal grandmother but two months later, he was placed with foster parents, with whom the Child has lived ever since, while the Department pursued a termination of parental rights ("TPR") proceeding against the Child's natural parents. Approximately two weeks before the final TPR hearing, the natural parents executed surrenders of their parental rights and consents to adopt with Attorney Sarah J. Campbell, acting as an adoption entity. The consents stated that the natural parents desired the Child to be adopted by his paternal grandfather and his wife (the "Grandparents"), who live in New York. The adoption entity moved to intervene in the TPR proceeding, and the trial court allowed the intervention pursuant to section 63.082(6)(c), Florida Statutes (2021), and found the consents to be valid and binding.
The adoption entity then filed a motion to transfer custody of the Child to the Grandparents pursuant to section 63.082(6)(d), Florida Statutes (2021), which both the Department and the Guardian ad Litem ("GAL") opposed. During a multi-day hearing on the motion to transfer custody, the trial court heard testimony, which the court thoroughly summarized in its detailed order on the motion. The witnesses included bonding experts, who offered differing opinions on the effect the transfer of custody would have on the Child; the paternal grandfather's wife, who desired to adopt the Child; the Child's foster mother; the Department's dependency case manager; and the GAL. The trial court also considered the deposition testimony of the Child's natural mother, who expressed a desire to reunite with the Child. The paternal grandfather's wife testified to the Grandparents’ efforts to adopt the Child and their visits with the Child.
The Child's foster mother testified to the love and affection between the Child and his foster parents that has developed since his placement with them in May 2019 and to the Child's relationship and frequent visits with his half-sibling, who lives nearby. The foster mother stated their wish to adopt the Child after the TPR proceedings are completed. The Department's case manager testified that the Department opposes the custody transfer due to the bond she observed between the Child and his foster parents and local half-sibling. Similarly, the GAL opposed the transfer after observing the Child's interactions with his foster parents indicating love and affection; she also expressed a negative view of the Child's bonding assessment with the Grandparents, which she observed.
After the hearing, the trial court rendered its comprehensive order on the motion to transfer custody. The trial court stated that the motion was controlled by legal authority contained in the Florida Constitution, Florida Statutes, and case law, and the trial court believed these "to be at odds with each other." The court outlined the statutory process involved in interventions for purposes of adoption contained in section 63.082(6) and diligently addressed the best interests factors contained in section 63.082(6)(e), Florida Statutes (2021). It interpreted the plain language of the statute to require a determination that the prospective adoptive parents are appropriate and that the change of placement is in the child's best interests, which, in this case it believed, would invite a comparison of the options available to the court, including transferring custody to the Grandparents or keeping the Child in his current placement.
The trial court concluded that if it were writing on a clean slate, it would not find that a change was in the Child's best interests based solely on the plain language of the statutory factors. It did not believe, however, that it was free to apply its plain language interpretation of the statute because of case law from the Fourth District Court articulating the standard to be applied by the court differently. See W.K. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams. , 230 So. 3d 905, 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (). Although the trial court believed this language in W.K. to be incorrect, it adhered to what it concluded was W.K. ’s binding precedent and, accordingly, found that the Grandparents were qualified to adopt and the natural parents’ choice was appropriate, although not the best choice. The trial court then granted the motion to transfer custody to the Grandparents but stayed the order pending this Court's review.
We find that the trial court's order departed from the essential requirements of the law, causing irreparable harm to the Child if custody were to be transferred. See Guardian ad Litem Program v. R.A. , 995 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (). We begin with the plain language of section 63.082(6) ’s text. See Ervin v. Collins , 85 So. 2d 852, 855 (Fla. 1956) (). "The words of a governing text are of paramount concern, and what they convey, in their context, is what the text means." Advis. Op. to Gov. Re: Implementation of Amend. 4, the Voting Restoration Amend. , 288 So. 3d 1070, 1078 (Fla. 2020) (quoting Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 56 (2012)). Consequently, "[w]here the language of the [statute] ‘is clear, unambiguous, and addresses the matter in issue, then it must be enforced as written ....’ " Israel v. DeSantis , 269 So. 3d 491, 495 (Fla. 2019) (quoting Fla. Soc'y of Ophthalmology v. Fla. Optometric Ass'n , 489 So. 2d 1118, 1119 (Fla. 1986) ). Applying these interpretive principles, we hold that the trial court incorrectly disregarded its analysis of section 63.082(6)(e) ’s factors in favor of its interpretation of W.K. ’s statement regarding the standard to be employed in deciding motions to transfer custody.
Section 63.082(6) permits an "adoption entity" to intervene in a dependency case where parental rights have not yet been terminated and a parent has executed a consent for placement of a minor with an adoption entity or qualified prospective adoptive parents. § 63.082(6)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. (2021). In this case, both parents signed consents for adoption by the Grandparents, and the adoption entity filed the motion to transfer custody prior to the termination of either parent's parental rights. The trial court then was required to conduct the evidentiary hearing pursuant to section 63.082(6)(c) to determine whether the Grandparents were properly qualified to adopt the Child and whether the adoption was in the best interests of the Child, "after consideration of all relevant factors, including those set forth in paragraph (e)." § 63.082(6)(d), Fla. Stat. In turn, section 63.082(6)(e) lists eight non-exclusive factors2 the court must consider when determining whether the best interests of a child are served by transferring custody of the child to the prospective adoptive parent selected by the parents. § 63.082(e), Fla. Stat. . These eight factors are:
§ 63.082(6)(e), Fla. Stat.
After weighing the evidence and applying these eight factors, the trial court concluded that the Child's best interests would not be served by transferring custody to the Grandparents. However, the trial court then erroneously elevated the right...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heart of Adoptions, Inc. v. Dep't of Children & Families (In re K.B.)
...and weigh those wishes with the other seven factors articulated in section 63.082(6)(e), along with "all relevant factors." Campbell, 348 So.3d at 1182 (emphasis in (quoting § 63.082(6)(e)). There is nothing in the record to suggest that the trial court failed to give due consideration to t......