D.M., MOTHER OF J.M., J.M., AND S.M., CHILDREN, 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 held that a case plan can be ordered for a parent who voluntarily places children in out-of-home care, even without a formal finding of dependency as to that parent.
Following a dependency hearing where children were found dependent as to the father but not the mother, the mother announced she was unable to care fo…
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 Dependency Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
In this rather unusual dependency case, the children were determined to be dependent as to the father (who does not appeal) but not dependent as to the mother. However, after this determination of non-dependency, the mother announced that she was unable to care for the children and they were placed in the custody of the maternal grandmother. The court, after the mother’s announcement of present inability to care for her children, ordered that since the mother was currently incapable of parenting her children, she must participate in a case plan with the goal that she eventually “start parenting effectively and provide the basics that are necessary.”
The mother appeals, claiming that the court cannot require a case plan without determining dependency, and that because the Department admitted that she was non-offending and the court found the children dependent only as to the father, it was error to require her to submit to a case plan. We affirm.
Section 39.603(l)(f) provides:
(1) At the hearing on the plan ... the court shall determine:
(f) Whether the plan is meaningful and designed to address facts and circumstances upon which the court based the finding of dependency in involuntary placements or the plan is meaningful and designed to address facts and circumstances upon which the child was placed in out-of-home care voluntarily.
(emphasis added).
By admitting that she was unable to care for her children, even without admitting their dependency, the mother voluntarily permitted the children to be placed in out-of-home care. The court properly ordered a case plan by which the mother could in time resume her parenting responsibilities.
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA and PALMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.P. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 855 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…iction over child and placing child in father’s care was premature, where the court placed the child with the father without requiring DCF to complete and file a home study on the father as dictated by statute); D.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 807 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), rev. denied, 819 So. 2d 134 (Fla.2002)(holding that trial court was warranted in ordering a case plan by which the mother could in time resume her parenting responsibilities, though children were not found to be dependent as to…
-
In the Interest of G.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 84 So. 3d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…All of these statutes together require the Department to “develop case plans tailored to address the needs of the family.” C.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 974 So. 2d 495, 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); see also D.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 807 So. 2d 90, 90 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (affirming the imposition of a case plan when a mother admitted that she could not care for her children and voluntarily placed them with their grandparents because the case plan was “designed to address [the] facts and circu…
-
C.K. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 949 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…court does have the authority to require a non-offending parent to participate in treatment and services. See § 39.521(l)(b), Fla. Stat.; J.P. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 855 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); D.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 807 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). We find here, however, that there is insufficient evidence to support such requirements as to W.K. We affirm, however, the trial court’s order as to the requirement that the father comply with the Interstate Compact on the Plac…