In re: Amendments to the Florida Small Claims Rules

The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.

The Florida Bar v. Joyce Sibson Dove

SC05-302 | SC05-1157

>> ALL RISE.
HEAR HEAR.
THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IS NOW IN SESSION.
ALL WHO HAVING BEEN BEFORE
THE COURSE DRAW NEAR, GIVE
ATTENTION AND YOU BE HEARD.
GOD SAVE THESE UNITED STATES,
THE GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA
AND THIS HONORABLE COURT.
>> GOOD MORNING.
GOOD MORNING.
>> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.
PLEASE BE SEATED.
>> GOOD MORNING.
WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT.
FOR THE ARGUMENT ON FRIDAY
APRIL 20th.
THE FIRST CASE ON OUR
CALENDAR IS FLORIDA BAR vs.
SIBSON.
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT
I'M CYSTIN GOOD WINN WITH
THE FLORIDA BAR.
WE'RE HERE ON A CASE
INVOLVING GREAT TRAVESTY OF
JUSTICE TO A EMFAR, TO A
BIRTH FAMILY, TO AN ADOPTION
FAMILY, TO THE COURT AND THE
LIES THAT HAVE BEEN DONE AND
THE DOCUMENTS CREATED
INCORRECTLY STATED.
FACTUAL -- PERTINENT FACTUAL
NECESSITIES, THAT WILL BE
PRESENTED WITHIN THE MOTIONS
AND WE'LL ALSO PRESENT IT
WITHIN THE ORDER -- THE
PROERS POD ORDERS.
>> LET ME ASK YOU.
GO AHEAD.
[INAUDIBLE]
[INAUDIBLE]
>> THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY AN
OBLIGATION TO THE
GRANDPARENTS?
THE WAY THE STATUTE WAS
WORDED ANY CHILD THAT LIVED
WITHIN A GRANDPARENTS HOME
FOR SIX MONTHS GRANDPARENT,
THOSE GRANDPARENTS HAD TO BE
GIVEN ACTUAL NOTICE OF ANY
POTENTIAL TERMINATION OF
PARENTAL RIGHT AND THEY WERE
GIVEN THE FIRST CHANCE TO BE
PART OF THAT.
IN THIS CASE THAT WAS
TOTALLY IGNORED.
AND NO POINT EVEN THOUGH THE
GRANDPARENTS ATTEMPTED
NUMEROUS TIME THROUGH
THEMSELVES AND THROUGH
ATTORNEYS, THROUGH PHONE
CALL, THROUGH LETTERS, THEIR
REQUEST TO BECOME PART OF
THIS CASE AND TO GAIN
CUSTODY OF THAT CHILD WAS
IGNORED.
HOW WAS THAT EXPLAINED?
HOW WAS THAT EXPLAINED TO
THE REFEREE BELOW THAT SHE
IGNORE REPEATED CONTACTS BY
THE GRANDPARENTS AND
INSTRUCT THEIR STAFF NOT TO
ANSWER.
THE MOTIVATION BEHIND THAT.
HOW IS THAT EXPLAINED?
>> I CAN'T EXPLAIN THE
MOTIVATION.
BUT I BELIEVE IT'S IT WAS
SIMPLY THE $15,000.
IF A -- THE ADOPTION DIDN'T
GO THROUGH SHE WOULDN'T BE
PAID.
LET ME TAKE A LOOK AT THIS.
I'M TRAVELED BY EVEN THE
BAR'S POSITION ON THIS.
IS WE SEEM TO HAVE WHAT
APPEARS TO BE AN ADOPTION
BUSINESS.
THEN WE HAVE A LAWYER
RUNNING THAT ADOPTION
BUSINESS.
THEN WE HAVE WHAT I DON'T
KNOW HOW COULD BEED OTHER
THAN STEALING A CHILD FROM A
FAMILY AND YOU STAND BEFORE
US AND TELL US THIS IS
EGREGIOUS, WHICH I CAN
UNDERSTAND THOSE STATEMENTS.
BUT IF IT'S THAT EGREGIOUS
WHY IS THE BAR ONLY ASKING
FOR A YEAR'S SUSPENSION.
THIS IS AS BAD AS ANYTHING
I'VE RUN INTO AS A LAWYER.
>> THE FLORIDA BAR
RECOGNIZES THAT AND THE
FLORIDA BAR DOES AGREE.
HOWEVER IN DECIDING WHAT IT
IS THAT WE WANTED TO ARGUE
IN THE REFEREE LEVEL WE DID
TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE GREAT
MITIGATION THAT SHE HAD IN
THE COMMUNITY SERVICES THAT
SHE HAD DONE.
WE'VE ALREADY CROSSED THAT
BRIDGE.
THERE'S A FINE, FINE, FINE
MAN THAT WORKED FOR YEARS
AND YEARS AND YEARS AND THEN
FELL OFF THE BRIDGE AND I
MEAN TO, ME TAKING A CHILD
IS FAR WORSE.
I'M HAVING DIFFICULT
UNDERSTANDING HOW THE BAR
CAN EQUATE THOSE THINGS.
IF WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR
PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR AND
PROTECTING THE PUBLIC AND
THEN OUR BAR TAKES THE
POSITION, WELL, OH, A YEAR
WILL DO THAT.
WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE ARE WE
SENDING TO THE PUBLIC?
TO THE OTHER LAWYERS?
>> SIR, I THINK THAT IT WAS
AN RG -- ARGUMENT MADE AT
THE TIME.
I THINK AS WITH ANY CASE THE
L FLORIDA BAR WOULD
ABSOLUTELY FOLLOW YOUR LEAD.
I RECOGNIZE THIS IS A CASE
TO ME WAS INCREDIBLY
EGREGIOUS AND -- BUT
WHETHER -- THERE WAS NO
CLEAR PRECEDENT ON SOMETHING
THAT WAS OF THIS TYPE OF
FACTUAL PLACEMENT WHEN
LOOKING AT CORONA YOU LOOK
AT TRUST ACCOUNTING
VIOLATION.
WHEN I'M SEEING THINGS I
DON'T AGREE THAT THE
STEALING OF A CHILD IS THE
SAME OF STEALING OF MONEY,
OBVIOUSLY.
BUT BECAUSE THERE'S NO
PRECEDENT IT WAS DIFFICULT
TO ARGUE.
WHAT IS THIS?
WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE
ADOPTION THAT WAS AT ISSUE
HERE?
>> CURRENTLY?
>> YES.
THE ADOPTION FAMILY, THE
GRANDPARENTS HAD FILED SUIT
IN THE ADOPTION FAMILY
ANSWERED THAT SUIT.
THEY CAME TO A MEDIATION.
RECOGNIZING THAT THE
ADOPTION WAS DONE SO POORLY.
THEY CAME TO AN AGREEMENT
FOR OPEN ADOPTION RATHER
THAN IS CLOSED ADOPTION.
>> THE ADOPTED PARENTS ARE
THE -- ARE THE ADOPTED
PARENTS OF CHILD.
>> CORRECT.
AND THE -- WHAT IS GOING ON
IS AN OPEN ADOPTION AND
MELDING OF THE FAMILY.
CORRECT.
AND THEY NOW HAVE REQUIRED
VISITATION RIGHT, THE
GRANDPARENTS HAVE REQUIRED I
HAVETATION LIMITED SO
REQUIRED.
>> IS IT THE NATURAL PARENTS
SKWRAOPL THE NATURAL PARENT
IS ABLE.
>>> THE NATURAL PARENT IS
ABLE TO VISIT.
[INAUDIBLE]
[INAUDIBLE]
>> ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONOR.
ABSOLUTELY.
OPEN ADOPTIONS ARE
INCREDIBLY VALUABLE.
BUT AS YOU STATED THAT WAS
NOT WHAT THE ADOPTION FAMILY
PAID FOR AND NOR WAS ANY
ADOPTION SOMETHING THAT THE
GRANDPARENTS WANTED OR
CONSENTED TO.
THE GRANDPARENTS WERE TAKING
CARE OF THE CHILD, HAD
PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF THE
CHILD AND WERE WILLING TO
MAINTAIN THAT CUSTODY.
[INAUDIBLE]
>> SHE DID.
THERE WAS ACTUALLY LETTERS
FROM HER, ONE OF THEM CAME
TO THE RESPONDENT ON THE DAY
OF THE TERMINATION OF
PARENTAL RIGHT.
IT WAS IGNORED.
SHE WAS TOLD SHE HAD NO
CHANCE, THAT ONCE THE 72
HOURS HAD PASSED SHE COULD
NOT GET THE CHILD BACK.
[INAUDIBLE]
I'M NOT AN ATOPGS ATTORNEY.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YES
THE MOTHER HAD PHYSICALLY
THE ABILITY TO RECLAIM
WITHIN 72 HOURS.
I DON'T KNOW IN TERMS OF
CONSTITUENT TO THAT HOW MUCH
RIGHTS THAT PARENT HAS.
[INAUDIBLE]
>> IN ORDER FOR TO HAVE
RIGHT THEY HAVE TO BE TOLD
THERE ARE RIGHT.
THE DAY A MISSISSIPPI
ATTORNEY WAS FIRED TO EVEN
THE CHILD TO INFORM HIM HIS
CHILD WOULD BE PUT FOR
ADOPTION IS THE SAME DAY THE
ORDER WAS SIGNED.
AT NO POINT WAS HE EVER TOLD
THAT HIS RIGHT WERE EVER IN
QUESTION.
[INAUDIBLE]
[INAUDIBLE]
[INAUDIBLE]
>> THE PROBLEM WE HAD WITH A
TRUST ACCOUNT VIOLATION WE
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO BE
ABLE TO GO AND AUDIT ANY
RECORDS REGARD ADOPTION, IF
THEY ARE NOT OPEN TO PUBLIC
AND ES KA -- INVESTIGATION
UNLESS WE'RE ABLE TO HAVE A
COMPLAINT.
NO OTHER COMPLAINT REGARDING
SPECIFIC ADOPTION OR
INAPPROPRIATE ADOPTIONS WERE
DONE.
ONE OF THE THOUGHTS THAT THE
BUYER WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE
TO DO IS GIVEN THIS CASE WE
WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO GO
BACK AND AUDIT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S AN
APPROPRIATE OR ABILITY TO DO
OR NOT.
I RECOGNIZE THE RESPONDENT'S
CONCERN SHE HAD VOICED IN
ONE OF HER RESPONSES THAT,
THAT VERY CONCERN ON THOSE
ADOPTION THAT WERE DONE
CORRECTLY WOULD -- WITH
THOSE FAMILIES WOULD THEN BE
CONCERNED.
I THINK THAT UPON AN AUDIT
OF THOSE ADOPTIONS FINDING
THEY ARE SIGNED IF THOSE
ADOPTION WERE DONE WOULD
ACTUALLY BE A MUCH BETTER
SECURITY FOR THEM.
>> LET ME CAN YOU THIS.
IT REALLY HAS TO DO WITH THE
FATHER OF THE CHILD.
WAS HE EVER FOUND AND DID HE
EVER VOICE EITHER AGREE TO
TERMINATION OF HIS RIGHT OR
NOT AGREE?
>> HE WAS FOUND.
HE WAS KNOWN FROM THE VERY
BEGINNING FROM THE VERY
FIRST DAY THE MOTHER
IDENTIFIED HIM.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.
I KNOW THAT THEY HAVE NOT
GOTTEN ANY PAPERS SIGNED
SAYING HE WAS WILLING TO
TERMINATE HIS PARENTAL
RIGHT.
>> CORRECT.
AND THAT WAS NEVER DONE.
HE HAD NEVER ACCEPTED THAT
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL
RIGHT.
>> I GUESS NOT KNOWING MUCH
ABOUT ADOPTION LAWS HOW CAN
THIS ADOPTION CONTINUE
WITHOUT -- WITH THAT
UNANSWERED QUESTION?
>> AND THAT IS GREAT
CONCERN.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS
HAPPENING IN THE MOTION
THERE WAS A DESEPGS TO THE
COURT THAT THE LEGAL FATHER
WHO THERE IS NO TRUE PERSON
WHO CAN BE TERMED THAT BUT
THE LEGAL FATHER HAD GIVEN
CONCURRENT AND THAT
INFORMATION BEING SHARED
WITH THE COURT THE COURT
AGREED TO SIGN THE ORDER.
WITHOUT CHECKING THE ACTUAL
RECORD I MEAN.
>> HOW LONG AGO WAS THIS
NOW?
>> FOUR YEARS NOW.
FOUR OR FIVE YEARS.
ARE THERE ANY STATUTE OF
LIMITATION ON WHETHER OR NOT
THE REAL FATHER WOULD HAVE
ANY ROLL BACK OR HAS THAT
TIMED PASSED?
>> I DON'T KNOW.
I CAN FIND OUT IF YOU LIKE.
>> WAS THERE A HOME STUDY
DONE IN THIS CASE?
>> YES.
AND IT WAS APPROPRIATELY
SUBMITTED OF THE ADOPTION
FAMILY?
>> IT WAS JUST OF THE
ADOPTION FAMILY THE PERSON
DIDN'T TALK TO THE
GRANDPARENTS OR THE BIRTH
MOTHER?
>> THE -- THE CASEWORKER
SPOKE WITH THE FIRST MOTHER.
THEY NEVER SPOKE WITH THE
GRANDPARENTS AND NEVER SPOKE
WITH THE BIRTH FATHER.
>> THAT'S BECAUSE THE WHOLE
IDEA HERE WAS --
[INAUDIBLE]
YES, MA'AM.
>> WAS THE CASEWORKER AN
EMPLOYEE OF THE ADOPTION
AGENCY OR WAS THIS AN
INDEPENDENT PERSON.
>> AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
THAT WORKED REGULARLY WITH
THE ADOPTION AGENCY.
BASED IN ORLANDO, THE WORKER
ACTUALLY PICKED UP THE
WORKER AND HAD KNOWLEDGE OF
THE GRANDPARENTS CONCERN WAS
AN EMPLOYEE OF THE AGENCY.
>> YOU'RE INTO YOUR REBUT
AL.
YOU CAN SAVE YOUR TIME OR
USE IT AS YOU DEEM
NECESSARY.
I WILL SAVE TIME.
I WILL JUST SAY THANK YOU
VERY MUCH.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICES,
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
I'M JOYCE DOVE I'M SURE IN
MY COUNSEL WERE HERE HE
WOULD ARGUE MORE OF THE LAW
WHICH YOU HAVE IN THE
BRIEFS.
BUT I CAN TELL BY YOUR
QUESTIONS THAT MY VOICE MAY
BE AN IMPORTANT ONE FOR YOU
UNDERSTAND TO THE
CIRCUMSTANCES AROUND THIS
PARTICULAR ADOPTION.
AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
WHAT THE ADOPTION WAS AT
THAT TIME HAS REQUIRED ME
AND WHERE I FAILED TO TO IT.
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE
PERSPECTIVE OF THE COURT
BELOW WAS ONLY ABLE TO VIEW
THE CASE THROUGH WHAT I HAD
FILED.
AND I DO UNDERSTAND AND I
RECOGNIZE AND I ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT IT WAS MY FAILURE TO
FILE AND DEFINE WHAT THE
BIRTH MOTHER'S POSITION WAS
AND WHAT HER RELATIVE'S
POSITION WAS, WHAT THE BIRTH
FATHER, WHO THE BIRTH
TOGETHER MIGHT BE AND WHAT
OUR ATTEMPTS WERE TO CONTACT
HIM AND WHO WE WERE CALLING
THE LEGAL FATHER.
THOSE THINGS WERE VERY
IMPORTANT AND SHOULD HAVE
BEEN CLEARLY DESCRIBED BOTH
JUDGES ORDERED THIS CASE.
[INAUDIBLE]
>> IN THE TERMINATION OF
PARIENTAL RIGHT PHASE OF THE
CASE THE PLEADING THAT WERE
FILED INITIALLY WERE
CORRECT.
THE BIRTH MOTHER HAD CONSENT
FORD THE CHILD TO BE
ADOPTED.
AND THE MAN WHO WAS E WHO
MET THE DEFINITION OF LEGAL
FATHER HAD SIGNED ALL OF
PAPERWORK REQUIRED TO GIVE
UP THE CHILD.
>> SHE MUST HAVE TOLD YOU HE
WAS NOT THE BIOLOGICAL
FATHER AT THE TIME.
>> YES.
AND THE FAILURE TO PUT NAME
ON THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER'S
NAME WITHOUT LISTING HIM AS
A BIOLOGICAL FATHER WAS THE
FIRST MISTAKE.
>> THEY WERE NOT MARRIED,
WERE THEY?
>> NO, SIR.
TELL ME HOW HE COULD
POSSIBLY BE THE LEGAL FATHER
OF THIS CHILD.
>> THE MAN SHE WAS LIVING
WITH HIT THE DEFINITION OF
LEGAL FATHER BECAUSE HE
PROVIDED CONSISTENT REPORT
FOR SHE AND THE CHILD.
AND THE CHILD LIVED WITH HIM
AND THE SOCIAL WORKER
REPRESENTED THERE WOULD BE
MARRIED IN A -- OF COURSE AN
ADOPTION PROCEEDING
IN -- ANYTIME THE ADOPTION
PROCEEDING HE WOULD NOT --
>> IT SAYS THAT THE NATURAL
MOTHER OF THE CHILD AND
ENTER INTO A RELATIONSHIP
WITH SOMEBODY THAT'S NOT THE
BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE
CHILD.
OKAY.
AND THAT IF THEY ENTER INTO
THAT LIVING TOGETHER THAT,
THAT PERSON THEN CAN
CONSTITUTE THE LEGAL FATHER
OF THIS CHILD, EVEN THOUGH
HE'S NOT THE BIOLOGICAL
FATHER AND HAD NOTHING TO DO
WITH BRINGING THAT CHILD TO
THE WORLD.
IS THAT WHAT OUR STATUTES
PROVIDE?
>> AT THAT TIME THERE WAS A
PROVISION IN THE ALTERNATIVE
WHERE NO MAN THE LISTED ON
THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
NO MAN SUPPORTED THE MOTHER
DURING THE PREGANCY.
WHEN NO MAN CAME FORWARD TO
CLAIM THE CHILD OR HAVE
ANYTHING.
>> WOW WERE INFORMED WHETHER
I UNDERSTAND IT OR NOT AND
ITS UNCONTRADICTED OF THE
IDENTITY OF THE BIOLOGICAL
FATHER OF THIS FATHER; IS
THAT CORRECT?
>> SHE TOLD US THE NAME, YES,
SIR.
WE DID A SEARCH FOR HIM ON
THE SEARCH ENGINES THAT ARE
AVAILABLE.
>> WELL TELL US WHERE WAS
THE FATHER?
>> THE NATURAL FATHER?
>> WE'LL SKIP OVER THIS
LEGAL FATHER ISSUE FOR RIGHT
NOW.
WHERE WAS THE FATHER?
>> THE MAN SHE NAMED WAS --
>> THE MAN SHE NAMED.
OKAY WHAT -- DO YOU ANY
REASON TO DOUBT THAT SHE WAS
NOT TELLING YOU THE CORRECT
FACTS?
THAT SHE TOLD YOU WHO THE
BIOLOGICAL FATHER WAS?
>>.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY KIND OF
DNA PROOF.
AND YOU KNOW IN THIS CASE
ONE IN DOING ANY TERMINATION
OF LEGAL RIGHT CASE --
>> WAS IT AN ADOPTION?
IF YOU GO THROUGH AN
ADOPTION, THE STATUTE
REQUIRE AND RECOGNIZE RIGHT
IN THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER, DO
THEY NOT?
>> YES, SIR.
AND A POTENTIAL BOMB AND
KNOW IN AN ADOPTION CASE CAN
BE A FAILURE IF KNOWN.
TO PUT THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER
ON NOTICE.
>> ISN'T THAT RIGHT?
>> YES, SIR.
ISN'T THAT A TICKING BOMB IN
ANY ADOPTION CASE WHERE THE
BIOLOGICAL FATHER IS KNOWN
AND NO IS NEWSPAPER.
>> IT IS SIGNIFICANT.
AND THE ISSUE AT THAT TIME
BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE
FATHER REGISTRY AT THAT
TIME.
THE ISSUE AT THAT TIME WAS
TO PLEAD ABANDONMENT AND
THAT WAS ANOTHER MISTAKE I
MADE.
ABSOLUTELY.
[INAUDIBLE]
[INAUDIBLE]
>> NO YOUR HONOR.
I APOLOGIZE THERE ARE
CERTAINLY MISREPRESENTATION
THE COURT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
FULLY, FULLY AWARE OF IN
EACH OF THE DETAILS.
BOTH THE TERMINATION OF
PARENTAL RIGHT JUDGE AND THE
ADOPTION JUDGE SHOULD HAVE
BEEN FULLY INFORMED.
THE ISSUE.
>> NOT JUST THEY SHOULD BE
FULLY INFORMED.
WHY WASN'T THE BIOLOGICAL
FATHER PUT ON NOTICE OF
THESE PROCEEDINGS SO THAT
ISSUE COULD BE RESOLVED AND
ANYBODY THAT APPARENTLY THE
CLEARLY VIRTUALLY EVERYBODY
IN THIS IS COULD BE CALLED
THE GOOD GUYS OR GALS BUT
THE ADOPTED PARENTS ONE OF
THE THINGS, OBVIOUSLY THAT
THEY HAVE TO BE CONCERNED
ABOUT IS THAT IS THERE A
CLAIM OUT THERE OKAY THAT
COULD POTENTIALLY COME OUT
OF NOWHERE AND REALLY OKAY
BLOW THIS WHOLE THING UP AND
YOU AVOID THAT BY COMPLYING
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
PUTTING THE BIOLOGICAL
FATHER ON NOTICE.
SO THAT, THAT GETS RESOLVED
EITHER BY CONCURRENT OR BY
DEFAULT OR HOWEVER.
SO WHAT ATTEMPTS DID YOU
MAKE TO SERVE NOTICE THAT
FOR YOU WERE INFORMED OF THE
IDENTITY OF THE BIOLOGICAL
FATHER, WHAT ATTEMPTS DID
YOU MAKE TO SERVE NOTICE ON
THE LOGICAL FATHER?
>> WE CONTACTED AN ATTORNEY
IN MISSISSIPPI IN ORDER TO
BE ABLE TO DETERMINE IF THE
MAN WHO WE HAD FOUND BY
SEARCHING WOULD BE THE MAN
THE SAME -- YOU KNOW
IDENTICAL PERSON AS SHE
NAMED THAT WAS WHAT WE
THOUGHTS APPROPRIATE.
THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT WAS
APPROPRIATE.
>> BOTH THE BIOLOGICAL
FATHER SERVED WITH NOTICE OF
THE ADOPTION A -- PROCEEDING
OR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL
RIGHT PROCEEDINGS?
>> IT WAS NOT COMPLETE AND
IT WAS MISTAKE AND
ABSOLUTELY AN IMPORTANT
ISSUE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
COMPLETED.
>> IS THAT CLAIM STILL
POTENTIALLY OUT THERE?
>> NO, SIR.
BECAUSE OF TWO THINGS.
ONE IS BECAUSE HE DID AND
THE CHILD FACTUALLY, SO HE
WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO COME
BACK IN.
WELL, THE FACTS THAT HE KNEW
HE HAD THE CHILD SUPPORTED
THE CHILD AT SOME TIME.
BEFORE YOU CAN AND YOU HAVE
TO KNOW YOU THE CHILD.
YES, SIR.
THE MOTHER HAD GUN ON WALKS
AND HE HAD FOLLOWED HER
GOING AWOL FROM THE NAVY.
THEY HAD LIVED TOGETHER AT
THE GRANDPARENTS HOME BEFORE
THEY THEN TURNED THEM BACK
IN AND THEN WERE DISHONEST
ORABLY DISCHARGE.
SHE BECOME PREGNANT DURING
THAT PERIOD OF TIME WHEN
THEY WERE AWOL AND HE ASSIST
HEARD WITH CONTACTING THE
FIRST ADOPTION AGENCY DURING
THE PREGNANCY THAT SHE WOULD
GIVE THE CHILD UP DURING THE
PREGANCY.
THEN HE LEFT BECAUSE
HEETTELY HAD TO SERVE TIME
BECAUSE OF AWOL STATUS.
SHE HAD AN INJURY WHICH
MITIGATED HER CIRCUMSTANCES
AND SO HE DID NOT RETURN NOR
DID HE EVER -- WAS HE EVER
IN TOUCH WITH HER.
HER FATHER CONTINUED TO WORK
WITH HER ON -- ON THE
POTENTIAL --
>> SO YOU WERE INTIMATELY
FAMILIAR WITH THE ROLE OF
THE BIRTH FATHER.
WAS ANY OF THAT DISCLOSED TO
THE COURT THAT PRESIDED OVER
THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL
RIGHT OR THE ADOPTION COURT?
>> NO, WE DIDN'T WE WERE NOT
THE AGENCY -- MY CLIENT WAS
NOT THE AGENCY THAT DID
THAT.
THAT WAS A COMPLETELY
SEPARATE CONTACT THE BIRTH
MOTHER HAD THAT SHE
DISCLOSED WHEN WE DEPOSED
HER.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT
THIS CASE IS THAT IT'S GONE
ON FOR SO LONG THAT WE'VE
LEARN SEWED MUCH MORE ABOUT
ALL OF THESE PEOPLE IN THE
BEGINNING WAS A CASE WHICH
NEEDED TO BE INVESTIGATED
FURTHER.
AND IT WASN'T DONE BY ME.
AND THAT'S MINE --
>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT
DISTURBING TO ME IS THAT
THERE PROBABLY ARE A FEW
THINGS THAT THE COURT DO
THAT ARE MORE FRAGILE IN
HANDLING CHILDREN.
AND THE ADOPTION.
BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE
FEELINGS THAT ARE INVOLVED
IN THE ADOPTIVE PARENTS OR
THE GRANDPARENTS.
AND THE FATHER, THE MOTHER
AND THAT -- WE HAVE TO
EXPECT LAWYERS TO DEAL UP
FRONT AND STRAIGHT AND
KNOWLEDGE WITH THE FACTS AND
THE LAW AND CERTAINLY YOU
WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH
THAT.
>> YES, SIR.
>> AND THAT WHEN A LAWYER
DOESN'T DO THAT, THEN THE
REMEDY HAS GOT TO BE A
SUBSTANTIAL SANCTION,
BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS
DEPENDING ON THE LAWYER.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH
WHAT I KNEW BEFORE THE CASE
ENDED AND WHAT KNOW NOW
THERE'S THIS HUGE GAP.
IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO
KNOW IT DURING THOSE 30
DAYS.
>> YES, SIR.
AND THEY UNDERSTAND.
AND I THOUGHT THERE WAS SUCH
A TRAP OUT THERE, A HUGE GAP
IN MY KNOWLEDGE FROM THE
FIVE THAT I WAS GIVEN THIS
IS ABSOLUTELY -- IT'S MY
RESPONSIBILITY THEN AND NOW.
>> CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION.
I DON'T THINK YOU'RE ABLE TO
FINISH ANSWERING A QUESTION
EARLIER.
DID YOU -- YOU SAID YOU HAD
CONTACTED AN ATTORNEY TO TRY
TO LOCATE A BIOLOGICAL
FATHER.
WERE YOU ABLE -- ABLE TO
FIND HIM BEFORE YOU SERVED
THE PAPERS?
>> SHE HAD THE PAPERS.
AND WAS GOING TO SERVE HIM.
AND SHE FOUND THE GENTLEMAN
WE HAD FOUND BY GOING
THROUGH OUR SEARCH ENGINE
AND I CAN OBVIOUSLY RELY ON
WHAT SHE TOLD ME THAT SHE
WAS HIS FATHER AND THEN WE
STOPPED HER AFTER THAT.
IT WAS 30 DAYS BEFORE THE
ADOPTION AND NOTHING ELSE
HAPPENED.
>> WHY DO YOU HAVE TO STOP
30 DAYS BEFORE THE ADOPTION?
>> I'M JUST SAYING THAT'S
WHAT'S HAPPENED.
SHE SHOULD HAVE GONE AHEAD
AND SERVED HIM HAVING FOUND
THE TOGETHER.
THAT'S WHAT I SHOULD HAVE
INSTRUCTED HER TO DO.
>> IS THAT YOUR
RESPONSIBILITY AS THE
ATTORNEY?
>> YES.
ABSOLUTELY.
THERE'S NO ONE ELSE.
NO ONE ELSE WOULD UNDERSTAND
THE LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY,
THE AGENCY DIDN'T HAVE
ANOTHER ATTORNEY, I
ABSOLUTELY SHOULD HAVE DONE
IT.
>> FOLLOW-UP ON WHAT JUSTICE
WELLS WAS ASKING.
YOU WERE PAID A PRETTY GOOD
FEE.
$15,000 FOR THIS ADOPTION.
YOU HAD THE GRANDPARENTS
INVALUABLE SOURCE OF
INFORMATION WHO MOTHER WAS
LIVING WITH THE LEGAL FATHER
AND THE LEGAL FATHER WAS
LIVING WITH.
>> THEY WERE ATTEMPTING
INNUMERABLE TIME TO GET IN
CONTACT WITH YOU IN CONTACT
AND WRITING.
WHAT REASON CAN YOU GIVE FOR
IGNORING WHAT WAS
POTENTIALLY THE VALUABLE
SOURCE OF INFORMATION,
RELIABLE INFORMATION IN THIS
CASE?
>> FIRST, IT WASN'T MY FEE.
IT WAS THE AGENCY.
AND I WAS ONLY PAID A
PORTION OF THAT.
>> AND -- THROUGH THE
AGENCY.
>> IT'S NOT YOUR COMPANY.
>> NO.
YOU ARE NOT THE DIRECTOR.
BOARD OF DIRECTOR?
>> I'M ON THE BOARD OF THE
DIRECTORS.
>> PROPERTY.
>> NONFOR PROFIT, YES, I AM.
AND WHO ELSE IS INVOLVED
WITH THAT?
BECAUSE THEY DOLLARS FOR
WHAT YOU DO?
>> THEY DO.
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT
THAT TIME -- AND ALWAYS
THERE WAS AN EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR WHO WAS IN CHARGE
OF THE OPERATION OF THE
AGENCY AS IT WOULD BE BY LAW
THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILIES.
SO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHO
HAD TO BE PAID WAS ALL OF
THE PEOPLE PARTICIPATING,
SORBL WORKER AND EXECUTIVE
DIRECT O'ER -- SOCIAL
WORKERS AND DIRECTIVE
DIRECTORS AND THINGS LIKE
THAT.
AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF -- I'M SORRY.
I'M TRYING TO BE STRAIGHT
FORWARD.
THE GRANDPARENTS APPROACH TO
CALL MY OFFICE WAS SO
UNRELIABLE, THAT AND THEN
THE ATTORNEYS WHO CONSIDER
AL -- CALLING ONE TURNED OUT
TO NO NOT BE AN ATTORNEY.
ONE THREATENED TO HAVE ME
ARRESTED.
ONE MET WITH ME PERSONALLY
BECAUSE OF OTHER REASONS AND
THEN TOLD ME SHOE WASN'T
GOING TO ENTER AN
APPEARANCE.
THERE WAS AN INTENCE PERIOD
OF ACTIVITY AND NONE OF THAT
WAS RELIABLE.
>> WHEN YOU SAY RELIABLE.
WHAT DID YOU MEAN?
DID -- DIDN'T YOU GET THE
CHILD FROM THE GRANDPARENTS.
>> NO.
>> SOMEONE PICKED HIM UP
FROM WARE?
>> THE SOCIAL WORKER FOR THE
AGENCY AND SOMEONE WHO
WORKED FOR MY OFFICE PICKED
THE CHILD UP FROM THE
MOTHER'S HOME.
>> BUT THE GRANDPARENTS.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU
SAY THEY WERE SO UNRELIABLE?
>> THEY WERE CALLING AND
SAYING THAT -- THEY WERE
DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
THEY WERE SAYING THEY WERE
THEIR DAUGHTER.
THAT WAS HER SISTER SWRAO IS
THAT BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T
GETTING THROUGH THE FIRST
TIME OR THE SECOND TIME OR
THE THIRD TIME?
>> NO THEY DID GET THROUGH
THE IRS TIME AS THEY SAID
AND WE SPOKE.
I SPOKE TO MOTHER AND GRAND
FATHER A COUPLE OF TIMES.
WHEN THEY BEGAN TO SAY OVER
AND OVER THAT THEY HAD AN
ATTORNEY I SAID I NEED THE
ATTORNEY TO CALL ME.
I CAN'T SPEAK WITH YOU
DIRECTLY AND IN FACT I WAS
CONTACTED BY ATTORNEYS AND
DID NOT THINK AFTER THAT I
COULD SPEAK WITH THEM.
>> WITH THAT HELP YOU'VE
EXHAUSTED ALL YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I WOULD STATE ONLY THREE
THINGS IF I MAY.
MISSTATEMENTS SOME BY
RESPONDENT.
THE MOTHER'S INTEREST IN THE
ADOPTION AT THE FIRST TIME
WHEN SHE WAS STILL PREGNANT
WAS NOT PROMOTED, NOR PART
OF THE BIRTH FATHER'S
CONSENT.
IT WAS ACTUALLY DONE BY THE
BOYFRIEND WHO WAS ALSO THE
REASON WHY SHE DID IT AFTER
THE BIRTH.
SO THAT IS NOT A CORRECT
STATEMENT.
THAT THE SEARCH FOR THE
FATHER WAS STOPPED BECAUSE
ACCORDING TO HER E-MAIL AS
YOU WILL SEE ON THE RECORD
BECAUSE A GRANDPARENTS WERE
CAUSING PROBLEMS THAT THE
ATTORNEY WHO WAS HIRED IN
MISSISSIPPI WAS ASKED TO
STOP THE SEARCH FOR THE
FATHER.
THE MAY NIP HRAEUGS THAT
HAPPEN WITHIN THIS CASE SO
IT MAY HAVE BEEN ONLY ON ONE
CASE THAT WE PROVED, IT WAS
IN A PERIOD OF TIME WE'RE
LOOKING AT NO LESS THAN 90
DAYS OF MAY NIP HRAEUGS OF
FACTS, MAY NIP HRAEUGS OF
PEOPLE.
THIS IS HORRIBLE.
AND IT'S TRAGIC.
AND IT WAS THE MAY NIP
HRAEUGS ONCE IN ONE -- 90
DAYS BY THE ATTORNEY.
IT HAS A LIFELONG IMPACT BY
THESE FAMILY.
THE ADOPTION FAMILY DID NOT
GET THE CLOSE ADOPTION THEY
SOUGHT.
THE GRANDPARENTS LOST THE
CUSTODY OF THE GRANDCHILD
THEY LOVED AND THE MOTHER
ALSO LOST THE CUSTODY WHICH
UNFORTUNATELY WAS
MANIPULATED BY HER
IMPRESSION FROM THE
BOYFRIEND.
>> IN TERMS OF THE --
[INAUDIBLE]
IF THE GRANT -- GRANDPARENTS
HAD ACTUAL NOTICE WHAT'S
FROM TOPPING THEM FROM
HAVING AN ATTORNEY?
THIS ISSUE AS A LEGAL FATHER
IS AND BIOLOGICAL FATHER IS
MORE TROUBLING -- DON'T YOU
AGREE THAT THE GRANDPARENTS
HAD ACTUALLY A --
[INAUDIBLE]
>> THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE
SUCH THAT THEY KNEW WHERE
THE CASE WAS OR WHAT TO DO.
THEY ARE NOT FROM THIS
COUNTRY SO THEY DIDN'T KNOW
HOW TOW PROCEED.
BUT WHAT THEY DID DO IS
CONTACTEDDEN TOS NOT
ADOPTION ATTORNEYS,
SPECIFICALLY BUT ATTORNEYS
THAT THEY KNEW WHO WERE
GIVING THEM HELP TRYING TO
COMMUNICATE WITH MISS DOVE
TO SHARE THEIR CONCERNS.
THEY WERE NOT SURE WHERE THE
CASE WAS.
THEY LIVED IN ORLANDO.
AND ACCORDING TO THE WAY
THAT THE RULES WERE FOR THAT
ADOPTION ATTORNEY THAT THEY
DID SPEAK TO IN ORLANDO, A
CHILD HAD ASKED THE AGENT
SIX MONTHS THEN THE VENUE
NEED TO BE WHERE THAT CHILD
IS BORN.
THE VENUE CHANGED BECAUSE
THIS ADOPTION AGENCY MISS
DOVE BROUGHT THE CHILD TO
TALLAHASSEE.
THEY WEREN'T SURE WHERE THE
CASE WAS AND WERE NEVER
GIVEN ACTUAL NOTICE SO THEY
COULD PURSUE.
>> WITH OUR ASSISTANT YOU'VE
USED UP ALL YOUR TIME.
WE'LL TAKE THE CASE UNDER
ADVISEMENT.
THE NEXT CASE ON OUR
CALENDAR THIS MORNING
LARIMORE VERSUS STATE OF
FLORIDA.