Ostrum v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services of State of Fla., No. 94-2526
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | FARMER |
| Citation | 663 So.2d 1359 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D2582 Leslie Wayne OSTRUM, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES OF the STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 94-2526 |
| Decision Date | 22 November 1995 |
Page 1359
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES OF the
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
Fourth District.
Page 1360
Catherine L. Roselli, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Mary E. Easley, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
FARMER, Judge.
We grant the renewed motion of Catherine L. Roselli to withdraw as counsel for appellant and summarily affirm this appeal from a final order terminating appellant's parental rights. Under the circumstances, however, we take the time to explain what would ordinarily be a routine matter done without an opinion.
Appellant has been convicted of two counts of capital sexual battery on his own minor children and sentenced to two life terms, with minimum mandatory terms of 25 years on each count to run consecutively. Ostrum v. State, 638 So.2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). The earliest date on which he could be released from prison is well after these children will reach their majority. Moreover, an express provision of his sentences requires that he have no contact with his children while he is serving his sentence.
The state department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) brought proceedings against appellant for the termination of his parental rights (TPR). Counsel was appointed to represent him. At the ultimate trial on the TPR proceeding, an HRS caseworker described the children's accounts of his sexual abuse. Certified copies of his convictions and sentences were offered into evidence. A guardian ad litem recommended termination. Appellant's counsel called no witnesses and posed no objections to the evidence from HRS. Appellant himself declined an opportunity to be present at the hearing.
Page 1361
Appellant's counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw accompanied by an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). HRS, in turn, has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, pointing to the Anders brief and this court's policy of deciding cases involving the interests of children as expeditiously as possible. Appellant's counsel suggests that the question whether Anders applies to TPR appeals is open to doubt and requests that this court establish a policy in that regard.
TPR cases are not criminal in nature. They are civil proceedings which happen to affect the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pullen v. State, No. SC00-1482.
...of Anders procedures in termination of parental rights (TPR) proceedings. See Ostrum v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 663 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The First District Court adopted the procedures outlined in Ostrum, i.e., where counsel conducts a conscientious review of the......
-
E.T. v. State, Dept. of Children and Fams., No. 4D04-1450.
...in a TPR case is not the same as that enjoyed by a defendant in a criminal case. See Ostrum v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 663 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (counsel in a TPR appeal is not required to file a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, ......
-
NSH v. FLORIDA DCFS, No. SC02-261.
...criminal appeals was not applicable to termination of parental rights cases. In Ostrum v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 663 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), the Fourth District held that "the full panoply of Anders procedures" is unnecessary in the appellate review of these......
-
DCFS v. Natural Parents of JB, 98-2255.
...had previous occasion to consider this very same premise. In Ostrum v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Services of the State of Florida, 663 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), we addressed the contention that, because TPR cases are treated like criminal cases, counsel for a parent who conclud......
-
Pullen v. State, No. SC00-1482.
...of Anders procedures in termination of parental rights (TPR) proceedings. See Ostrum v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 663 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The First District Court adopted the procedures outlined in Ostrum, i.e., where counsel conducts a conscientious review of the......
-
E.T. v. State, Dept. of Children and Fams., No. 4D04-1450.
...in a TPR case is not the same as that enjoyed by a defendant in a criminal case. See Ostrum v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 663 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (counsel in a TPR appeal is not required to file a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, ......
-
NSH v. FLORIDA DCFS, No. SC02-261.
...criminal appeals was not applicable to termination of parental rights cases. In Ostrum v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 663 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), the Fourth District held that "the full panoply of Anders procedures" is unnecessary in the appellate review of these......
-
DCFS v. Natural Parents of JB, No. 98-2255.
...had previous occasion to consider this very same premise. In Ostrum v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Services of the State of Florida, 663 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), we addressed the contention that, because TPR cases are treated like criminal cases, counsel for a parent who conclud......