T.F., N/K/A T.G., MOTHER OF ET AL., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, 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 Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's order terminating DCFS protective services and placing four children in long-term relative care with paternal grandparents. The court found the mother had substantially complied with the case plan and that reunification would not be detrimental to the children, requiring their return to the mother's custody.
The court held that when a parent seeks reunification and has substantially complied with the case plan, the child must be returned if the court is satisfied that reunification will not be detrimental to the child's safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health. The trial court's order was not supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore was reversed.
[1] A child must be returned to a parent seeking reunification if the parent has substantially complied with the case plan and reunification will not be detrimental to the ch…
[2] An order determining that a parent has not met reunification requirements and placing a child in long-term relative care will be reversed if not supported by competent su…
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“if the parent has substantially complied with the case plan and "if the court is satisfied that reunification will not be detrimental to the child's, safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health."”
Establishes the legal standard for mandatory reunification in child dependency cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe mother appealed a trial court order that terminated DCFS protective services and placed her four children in long-term relative care with the pate…
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 Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
T.F., n/k/a T.G., the mother, appeals from the trial court’s order terminating the protective services of the Department of Children and Families and the placing her four children in long-term relative care with the paternal grandparents. Because the order is not supported by competent substantial evidence, we reverse.
Where, as here, a parent seeks reunification with a child, the child must be returned to his or her parent if the parent has substantially complied with the case plan and “if the court is satisfied that reunification will not be detrimental to the child’s, safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health.” B.D.E. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 829 So. 2d 359, 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (quoting section 39.701(8)(b), Florida Statutes); see also In the Interest of H.H., 865 So. 2d 634, 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). An order that determines that.these requirements have not been met and places a child in long-term relative care, and thus determines permanency, will not be reversed unless it is not supported by competent substantial evidence. See B.D.E., 829 So. 2d at 360; In the Interest of H.H., 865 So. 2d at 635.
At the relevant hearings, the mother presented unrebutted evidence that showed that the mother had substantially complied with the case plan and that reunification with the mother would not be detrimental to the children. Thus, reunification is required. See 39.701(8)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003). Rather than basing its determinations upon this evidence, it appears that the trial court’s decision to place the children in long-term relative care was based upon unsworn assertions, hearsay, and the court’s personal knowledge concerning the mother’s new husband. Thus, there was a total lack of competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s order. See A.M.T. v. State, No. 03-2830, 883 So. 2d 302, 2004 WL 1881750 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 25, 2004) (reversing a shelter determination where there was no sworn testimony that established a basis upon which to shelter the children).
Therefore, the trial court’s order is REVERSED and REMANDED for reunification of the children with the mother and reinstatement of the Department’s supervision, see Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.415(f)(5).
DAVIS, LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.D. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 974 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…to address the needs of the family through the provision of services and requirements that the parents accomplish specified tasks. See § 39.6011-.6012, Fla. Stat. (2006). As this Court explained in T.F. v. Department of Children & Family Services, 881 So. 2d 702, 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), “[w]here, as here, a parent seeks reunification with a child, the child must be returned to his or her parent if the parent has substantially complied with the case plan and ‘if the court is satisfied that reunification wil…1 / 2
-
E.I. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 979 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…rent has substantially complied with the case plan and ‘if the court is satisfied that reunification will not be detrimental to the child’s safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health.’ ” T.F. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 881 So. 2d 702, 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (quoting B.D.E. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 829 So. 2d 359, 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)). Thus ... there are at least two factors that a trial court must consider when ruling on a motion for reunification: the parent’…
-
M.N. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 120 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…t reunification will not be detrimental to the child’s safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health.’” C.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 974 So. 2d 495, 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (citing T.F. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 881 So. 2d 702, 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)). There are two factors a trial court must consider when ruling on a motion for reunification: the parent’s compliance with the case plan and whether reunification would be detrimental to the child. C.D., 974 So. 2d at 500.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In the Interest of H.H. and R.W. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 865 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- B.D.E. v. Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs. & T.M., 829 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- A.M.T. v. State, 883 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)