A.B., THE MOTHER, 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.
A Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's sua sponte imposition of a no-contact order between a mother and her dependent child in long-term relative custody, finding the order was an abuse of discretion used to punish the mother rather than protect the child's welfare.
The trial court abused its discretion in ordering no contact with the child. The no-contact order failed the test of reasonableness because there was no evidence that continued supervised visitation would pose any risk of harm to the child, and the order appeared to sanction the mother rather than protect the child's welfare.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by imposing a no-contact order between a parent and child over the objection of all parties, absent evidence that continued supervised…
[2] The purpose of dependency proceedings is the protection of the child, not the punishment of the parent.
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 intelligence“The trial court abused its discretion in ordering that the mother have no contact with the child, over the objections of all the parties involved, where there was no evidence that the mother's continued supervised visitation would pose any risk of harm to the child or that the grandmother and family were incapable of assuring the safety of the child during such visits.”
Establishes the core holding that the no-contact order constituted an abuse of discretion absent evidence of risk to the child
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA dependent child had established permanency in long-term relative placement with the maternal grandmother. The mother had been granted supervised vis…
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 Child Protection cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mother, A.B., challenges the lower court’s sua sponte imposition of a “no-contact” order with her dependent child who is in long-term relative custody.
The Department of Children and Families brought a motion to terminate protective supervision at an annual review hearing of a dependent child who had established permanency in long-term, relative placement with the maternal grandmother. The mother had been granted visitation supervised by the grandmother and had exercised such visitation. The court on its own motion entered an order requiring that the mother have no contact with the child until the mother provided the grandmother proof of completion of long-term, residential drug treatment. Neither the Department nor the Guardians Ad Litem assigned to the case had recommended that the mother not have continued supervised visitation.
The mother appeals the portion of the order directing no contact as a non-final order entered after a final order on an authorized motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(4). See Ayo v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 788 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Coy v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 623 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). On appeal, the Department continues to support the mother’s position that the mother should have supervised visitation with her child.
The trial court abused its discretion in ordering that the mother have no contact with the child, over the objections of all the parties involved, where there was no evidence that the mother’s continued supervised visitation would pose any risk of harm to the child or that the grandmother and family were incapable of assuring the safety of the child during such visits. From the record, the trial court’s no-contact order was not entered in the interest of the child’s welfare but to sanction the mother for not attending the review hearing or complying with the court’s directives. The purpose of a dependency proceeding is “the protection of the child and not the punishment of the person creating the condition of dependency.” § 39.501(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). The trial court’s imposition of a no-contact order fads the “test of reasonableness” associated with the review of discretionary, trial court decisions as set forth by the Supreme Court of Florida. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980).
Accordingly, the portion of the trial court’s order directing that the mother have no contact with the child is REVERSED.
GUNTHER, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.S. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 75 So. 3d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…2009) (finding jurisdiction to review post-disposition dependency order pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(4), and rejecting the argument that there is never any review by appeal of non-final orders in dependency cases); A.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 834 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (reviewing, pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(4), dependency order directing no contact between the mother and dependent child). But see In re M.V.-B, 19 So. 3d 381, 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (noting that dependency proceedings conclude by…
-
W.W. Father of N.S. v. Guardian AD Litem Program & Dep't of Child. & Families, 159 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…2009) (finding jurisdiction to review post-disposition dependency order pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(4), and rejecting the argument that there is never any review by appeal of non-final orders in dependency cases); A.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 834 So. 2d 350, 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (reviewing, pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(4), dependency order directing no contact between the mother and dependent child). Recent amendment to rule 9.130(a)(4), however, requires us to revisit the question of our jurisdictio…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Ace Patterson v. State, 788 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- COY v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 623 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)