IN THE INTEREST OF B.R., JR., AND B.R., MINOR CHILDREN, B.R., SR., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 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 court affirmed the adjudication of dependency for two minor children as to their incarcerated father, but expressed concern that the case plan was unrealistic given the father's incarceration and included a sexual abuse evaluation the trial court found unsupported by evidence.
The adjudication of dependency is affirmed, but the case plan must be amended to reflect realistic goals and remove unsupported requirements.
[1] A case plan for a dependent child must set realistic goal dates and requirements that the parent can accomplish, and must not include services unsupported by evidence pre…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe father was incarcerated in federal prison when the Department of Children and Families sought to have his two minor children declared dependent. T…
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 Case Plan Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
B.R., Sr., the father, appeals the trial court’s order which adjudicated his minor children, B.R. and B.R., Jr., to be dependent. We affirm the adjudication of dependency, but write to express our concern about the case plan filed by the Department of Children and Families which was accepted by the trial court.
At the November 5, 1999, hearing, the Department sought to have the children declared dependent as to the father who was incarcerated in a federal prison. We note that the plan set a target date of October 30, 2000, apparently due to the requirements in section 39.601(7), Florida Statutes (1999). It would be impossible for the father to accomplish the goals set forth in the plan because he will be incarcerated until some time in the year 2001. Further, the trial court sustained the father’s objections to the plan requirement that he attend a sexual abuse evaluation because the evidence presented at the hearing did not support the need for it. However, the November 5, 1999, case plan still calls for the evaluation.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s adjudication of dependency and request that, after the father is released from prison, the Department consider filing an amended case plan which encompasses the requirements discussed at the dependency hearing and sets a goal date which is realistic.
Affirmed.
PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.