## Facts

- Two juvenile dependency matters in Dade County involved minor children D.B. and D.S. and indigent parents.
- In D.B.’s case, the mother surrendered the child for permanent commitment and adoption, later sought to revoke the surrender, and both natural parents sought custody; the father was incarcerated.
- The trial court appointed private counsel for the indigent father and appointed a guardian ad litem for D.B., then found both parents unfit and ordered the State of Florida to pay the appointed fees.
- In D.S.’s case, the 16-year-old mother abandoned the child and was detained; the state agency sought temporary custody.
- The trial court appointed private counsel for the indigent mother and a guardian ad litem for D.S., adjudicated dependency, awarded temporary custody to the agency, and ordered the State of Florida to pay the appointed fees.
- The trial court relied on a federal district court decision that treated appointed counsel for indigent parents in dependency proceedings as constitutionally required.

## Issues

1. Whether due process under the Florida and U.S. Constitutions requires appointment of counsel for indigent parents and/or children in all juvenile dependency proceedings.
2. If counsel is constitutionally required in a dependency proceeding, whether the State of Florida or the county must pay appointed counsel and guardians ad litem.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s blanket rule requiring appointed counsel for all indigent participants in all dependency proceedings.
- The court held a constitutional right to appointed counsel necessarily exists when the dependency proceeding can result in permanent loss of parental custody.
- For other dependency proceedings, the court held the right to counsel is determined case by case under the due process test applied in Potvin v. Keller.
- The court held that when counsel is constitutionally required, the county (not the state) must compensate appointed counsel under a compensation approach that accounts for public and professional obligations.
- The court directed Florida courts to apply this standard rather than the categorical approach used by the federal district court relied on by the trial court.

## Legal Principles

- Due process requires appointed counsel in dependency proceedings that may permanently sever parental custody rights.
- In dependency proceedings not threatening permanent loss of custody, appointed counsel is not automatic; courts must evaluate due process needs case by case under Potvin v. Keller.
- Regardless of counsel appointment, courts must ensure participants receive notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- When appointment of counsel is constitutionally required in dependency proceedings, the county bears responsibility for compensating appointed counsel (and related court-appointed representation).

## Conclusion

The court rejected a categorical constitutional right to appointed counsel in all dependency proceedings, required counsel where permanent loss of parental custody is at stake, applied a case-by-case due process inquiry otherwise, and assigned payment responsibility to counties when counsel is constitutionally mandated.


In re Interest of D.B., 385 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1980)