R.F., AS FATHER OF R.F. & C.F., 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.
Father appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for reunification with his two children. The court affirmed the denial, holding that although father substantially complied with the case plan and passed a positive home study, reunification was not appropriate because the children's emotional well-being and safety would be at risk given their trauma from prior neglect and stated unwillingness to return home.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying reunification. Although statutory requirements permit placement upon completion of a home study, return to the parent is authorized only when placement will not be detrimental to the children's safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health. The children's trauma, expressed unwillingness to reunify, and emotional pain provided objectively reasonable concerns that reunification would be detrimental to their well-being.
[1] A trial court may deny a motion for reunification of children with a parent, even if the parent has substantially complied with a case plan and received a positive home s…
[2] A trial court's determination regarding the detriment of reunification to a child's well-being will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.
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 return to the parent is authorized only when the placement will not be detrimental to the children's safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health”
Establishes the legal standard for reunification decisions, requiring consideration of children's emotional and physical well-being beyond mere statutory compliance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFather's children were removed from his care after he neglected them by leaving them alone for days without food or electricity while abusing drugs. 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 Home Study cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, C.J.
R.F. (“father”) appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for reunification with his children, R.F. and C.F. We affirm.
On appeal, the father contends that the trial court should have ordered reunification because he had substantially complied with the case plan, and the home study was positive. Although section 39.521(3)(b), Florida Statutes, requires the trial court to place the children with the parent upon completion of a home study, this section and sections 39.522(2) and 39.701(8)(b), Florida Statutes, provide that the return to the parent is authorized only when the placement will not be detrimental to the children’s safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health. See also B.D.E. v. Department of Children and Family Services, 829 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
At the reunification hearing, the department stated that the children remembered all that had occurred when the father would leave them alone for days at a time with no food or electricity while he was abusing drugs. The department explained that the children had not seen their father in two and a half years and had been adamant for the last year that they did not want to live with their father. Also, the children had indicated that the only reason that they spoke to their father on a weekly basis was because the contact was court-ordered. R.F., who was fifteen, stated that it was scary even being in the same room with his father, and being in the courtroom made him feel very uncomfortable.
The trial court ordered a recess and asked that the children meet with their father in the presence of the department and the guardian ad litem and allow the father to explain all that he had accomplished in the last three years. After the recess, the guardian ad litem gave the court a summary of the meeting and stated that the children told her that they were not interested in having any further visits with their father. The department stated that it still opposed reunification, and the trial court denied the father’s motion. The trial court noted that it would take time for the children to regain trust in their father. The trial court stated:
I will deny the motion, because I have to make sure the children are safe. And they are clearly, both, in a lot of pain. I can just look at them. They are not being dishonest. They are just really in a lot of pain. And that has to be resolved before I send them home. They are not in any condition to go back with their dad ... if these kids told me right now — -if they were even equivocal, they gave me any indication that they could go home, you know, we’d be looking at it differently. But, I’m looking at two kids who’ve got a lot of issues from what happened three years ago or whenever it was. So, everything you’ve done satisfies the black and white piece of paper, but it doesn’t satisfy that these children feel safe or they will be safe emotionally at home with you.
Based on the transcript and the record, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that reunification at that time would be detrimental to the children’s well-being. Compare B.D.E., 829 So. 2d at 362-368 (although the trial court was mistaken in finding that the mother had not complied with the case plan, the trial court correctly denied the motion for reunification where the court had objectively reasonable concerns that reunification would be detrimental to the child’s safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health).
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of H.H. and R.W. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 865 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…[ren]’s health, safety and well-being,” these conclusions are not based on any specific findings and, therefore, are not reasonably objective. Because we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion, see R.F. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 844 So. 2d 821, 823 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), we reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate the most recent case plan, which had a goal of reunification. Such case plan would not bar the trial court from granting relative long-term placement at some point in the…
-
T.R. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 864 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…h or welfare can occur when any person: (i) Engages in violent behavior that demonstrates a wanton disregard for the presence of a child and could reasonably result in serious injury to the child. . See R.F. v. Department of Children and Families, 844 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)(denial of motion for reunification not abuse of discretion); Artuso v. Dick, 843 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)(trial court afforded wide discretion in determining child custody).…
-
S.P. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 17 So. 3d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…ety, health or well-being); S.P. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 904 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (reviewing denial of motion for reunification sought by appeal; reversing and remanding for factual findings); R.F. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 844 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (reviewing denial of motion for reunification sought by appeal; affirming on grounds trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining reunification would be detrimental to the child’s safety, health or well-being); In re V…
Authorities Cited
- B.D.E. v. Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs. & T.M., 829 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)