L.,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, ET AL.,
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.
A father sought certiorari review of a circuit court order denying his motion for reunification with his dependent child. The appellate court granted the petition and quashed the order, finding that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law by failing to make mandatory statutory findings required under Florida Statutes section 39.621(10)(c).
The court held that the circuit court did depart from the essential requirements of law by failing to address all six statutory factors required under section 39.621(10)(c). The order was quashed and the petition granted because the court must base its reunification decision on findings addressing: (1) parental compliance with the case plan, (2) resolution of circumstances causing dependency, (3) stability of child's placement, (4) child's preferences, (5) custodian's recommendation, and (6) guardian ad litem's recommendation.
[1] An order denying reunification entered after dependency but before termination of supervision or jurisdiction is reviewable by petition for writ of certiorari.
[2] A court must base its decision concerning a parent's motion for reunification on the effect of the decision on the child's safety, well-being, and physical and emotional…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The court shall base its decision concerning any motion by a parent for reunification or increased contact with a child on the effect of the decision on the safety, well-being, and physical and emotional health of the child.”
Establishes the statutory standard that courts must use when deciding reunification motions, focusing on the child's best interests.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn August 2024, a six-month-old child (M.L.) was sheltered and a dependency petition was filed alleging physical abuse or neglect and domestic violenc…
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 Preservation Of Issues For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Statewide Guardian Ad Litem Office.
MORRIS, Judge. A.L., the father of M.L., seeks certiorari review of a circuit court order denying the father's motion for reunification. Because the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law by failing to address the factors in section 39.621(10)(c), Florida Statutes (2025), we grant the petition and quash the order. In August 2024 M.L. was sheltered and the Department of Children and Families filed a dependency petition, alleging that M.L., who was six months old at the time, had been subjected to physical abuse or neglect and that the parents had engaged in violent behavior towards each other in the child's presence.1
On September 25, 2024, a reunification case plan was filed. On December 10, 2024, the mother was reunified with M.L. On February 12, 2025, the circuit court entered an order adjudicating M.L. dependent and approving the father's case plan. On July 28, 2025, the father filed a motion for reunification, alleging that he had substantially complied with his case plan. On August 20, 2025, the Department filed a motion to amend the case plan tasks for the parents. On October 17 and 31, 2025, the circuit court held hearings on the father's and the Department's motions. On November 10, 2025, the circuit court entered an order granting the Department's motion to amend case plan and a separate order denying the father's motion for reunification.2
In his petition before this court, the father argues that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law in denying his
An "order denying reunification . . . entered after dependency but before termination of supervision or jurisdiction" is reviewable by petition for writ of certiorari. See D.P. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 367 So. 3d 595, 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023).
Section 39.621(10)(c) provides as follows:
The court shall base its decision concerning any motion by a parent for reunification or increased contact with a child on the effect of the decision on the safety, well-being, and physical and emotional health of the child. Factors that must be considered and addressed in the findings of fact of the order on the motion must include: 1. The compliance or noncompliance of the parent with the case plan; 2. The circumstances which caused the child's dependency and whether those circumstances have been resolved; 3. The stability and longevity of the child's placement; 4. The preferences of the child, if the child is of sufficient age and understanding to express a preference; 5. The recommendation of the current custodian; and 6. Any recommendation of the guardian ad litem.
(Emphasis added.) "A finding regarding each of these factors is mandatory and vital to a proper order denying reunification." D.P., 367 So. 3d at 597-98 (quoting C.D. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 974 So. 2d 495, 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)). When a court fails to address the requisite statutory findings under section 39.621(10)(c), such failure "constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law causing irreparable harm." D.P., 367 So. 3d at 599.3
Petition granted; order quashed.
SILBERMAN and BLACK, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
two reasons: (1) the family law cases relied on by the Department "were appeals from final judgments" and "were not considered on certiorari review" and (2) the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure applicable to dependency cases did not "require the filing of a motion for rehearing to preserve challenges to the sufficiency of an order." Id. at 598. Since the issuance of D.P., Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.265(b)(4) has been amended to require such preservation in a motion for rehearing of a final order. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.265(b)(4) ("To preserve for appeal a challenge to the failure of the trial court to make required findings of fact in the final order, a party must raise that issue in a motion for rehearing under this rule."). The new version of rule 8.265 does not apply in this case because the order denying the father's motion for reunification is not a final order.