DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
IN THE INTEREST OF J.M.L. AND T.M.L., CHILDREN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The trial court erred by entering an order placing dependent children with their paternal grandparents without providing notice to HRS, and by violating the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.
[1] A legal custodian of a child is a party entitled to reasonable notice of any hearing concerning the child's placement.
[2] A trial court order placing children in the care and custody of out-of-state relatives is invalid if it violates the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDependent children were placed in the custody of HRS. HRS petitioned for compliance with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) to…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Interstate Compact On The Placement Of Children cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) appeals the trial court’s order which places J.M.L. and T.M.L. in the care and custody of their paternal grandparents. HRS contends that this order violates the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children and, further, was entered without due notice to HRS. We agree on both points and reverse.
On November 11, 1982, T.M.L., born October 12, 1980, and J.M.L., born June 29, 1982, were adjudicated dependent by reason of neglect. On January 17, 1983, these children were placed, after the parents had failed to comply with the trial court’s order to obtain electricity, running water, and adequate heating, in the care, custody and control of HRS for foster care placement. Thereafter, T.M.L. and J.M.L. were placed in foster care and the parents entered into a performance agreement with HRS.
On May 25, 1983, HRS petitioned the trial court to enter an order of compliance with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, section 409.401, Florida Statutes; HRS informing the court that it wished to conduct a home study of the children’s paternal grandparents, residents of Statenville, Georgia.
The trial court granted HRS’s petition and agreed to be the sending agency for T.M.L. and J.M.L. and abide by all provisions of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.
On August 2, 1983, the appropriate Georgia officials sent notice that they disapproved placement of T.M.L. and J.M.L. with their paternal grandparents. The Georgia home study found that the children would not receive the nurturing needed by them at the grandparents’ home. After reviewing this, the trial judge, on August 9, 1983, ordered that T.M.L. and J.M.L. continue in the temporary care and custody of HRS and directed the children’s parents to enter into another performance agreement.
On November 29, 1983, apparently after holding an ex parte hearing with the paternal grandfather, the trial judge entered the order on review. This order places T.M.L. and J.M.L. in the care and custody of the paternal grandparents and relinquishes jurisdiction over the children.
HRS first contends that the trial judge erred in entering this order without giving HRS prior notice of the hearing attended by the paternal grandfather.
We agree. Here, HRS became the legal custodian of T.M.L. and J.M.L. on January 17, 1983, when the children were placed in HRS’s care and custody.
Section 39.-41(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1983). As legal custodian, HRS was a party entitled to reasonable notice of the hearing attended by the grandfather. See Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.220(g) (providing that where the rules of juvenile procedure do not require a specific notice, all parties will be given reasonable notice of any hearing); Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.340 (the terms party and parties shall include the petitioner, the child, and every person upon whom service of summons is required by law); section 39.405(4), Florida Statutes (1983) (the summons shall be directed to, and shall be served upon, the ... legal custodian).
Next, HRS contends that the trial judge’s order is in violation of Article 111(d) and Article V of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children. Again, we agree. Here, the trial judge placed T.M.L. and J.M.L. in the care and custody of their paternal grandparents, residents of Georgia, after placement had been specifically disapproved by the appropriate Georgia officials.
Moreover, the trial judge’s order relinquished jurisdiction over T.M.L. and J.M.L. This is contrary to the provisions of Article 111(d) and Article V(a) of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, section 409.401, Florida Statutes (1983). See also Article 111(a) of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (providing that the sending agency shall comply with each and every requirement set forth in the article and with the applicable laws of the receiving state governing the placement of children).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand this cause to the trial court to conduct a hearing on the status and placement of T.M.L. and J.M.L., after giving reasonable notice to all interested parties, and direct that the trial court make no out-of-state placement of T.M.L. and J.M.L. except in compliance with the provisions of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
THOMPSON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Child. & Families v. Benway, 745 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…environment, which, after all, is the main purpose of the Compact.” Id. at 909. We align ourselves with the majority of cases deciding this issue, including the inference from the First District in Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. 455 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) that it, too, would find the ICPC applicable to the out-of-state placement of a child with a natural parent.4 Once a court has legal custody of a child, it would be negligent to relinquish that child to an out-of-state parent wit…1 / 2
-
Dep't OF Child. & Families v. Fellows, 895 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…tody of a child, it would be negligent to relinquish a child to an out-of-state placement or parent without an indication that the placement would be appropriate for the child. Id. Additionally, in Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. 455 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), the district court reversed an order placing the dependent children in Georgia where Georgia disapproved the placement. In this ease, New Hampshire officials reported the reasons for revoking placement approval: The child was a…
-
State v. L.G. and L.G., 801 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…ident family members, including parents. See Dep't of Children and Families v. Benway, 745 So. 2d 437, 439 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (placement with previously non-custodial, natural father in Vermont); Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. J.M.L., 455 So. 2d 571, 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (placement with grandparents in Georgia); D.S.S. v. Clay County Dep’t of Human Res., 755 So. 2d 584, 590 (Ala.Civ.App.1999); Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Leonardo, 200 Ariz. 74, 22 P. 3d 513, 518-19 (Ct.App.2001); Adoption o…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence