IN THE INTEREST OF M.A., N.S. AND S.S., CHILDREN; GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, APPELLANTS,
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 Guardian ad Litem appeals a trial court order placing three dependent children with their Massachusetts relatives instead of their foster family. The court affirms, finding that the trial court properly applied the best interests standard and did not improperly prefer relatives in making its custody determination.
The trial court did not apply an arbitrary preference for relatives but rather based its decision on competent substantial evidence including the relatives' home study and testimony. Placement with relatives was supported by competent substantial evidence as being in the children's best interests, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
[1] A trial court's decision regarding child custody will be affirmed if supported by competent substantial evidence and not an abuse of discretion.
[2] A party who fails to raise an objection in the trial court or appeal an order cannot argue for reversal on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court's findings that it was in the children's best interests to place them with their relatives, and thus, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the change in custody.”
Establishes the standard of review and the basis for affirming the trial court's custody determination.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThree children (M.A., N.S., and S.S.) had been adjudicated dependent and placed with a foster family. The trial court later ordered them placed with r…
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 Interstate Compact On The Placement Of Children cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Guardian ad Litem appeals the trial court’s order placing three dependant children, M.A., N.S., and S.S., in the custody of their relatives in Massachusetts. The Guardian ad Litem argues that (1) the trial court utilized an erroneous preference for relatives in determining that the children, who had previously been adjudicated dependant and placed with a foster family, should be placed with the relatives and (2) even if the trial court did utilize the correct standard, the trial court erred in finding that placement with the relatives was in the best interests of the children. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the trial court’s order. After the trial court ruled that the children would be placed with relatives, the Guardian ad Litem moved for rehearing arguing, in part, that there was no preference in the law for the placement of the children with relatives at this stage in the proceedings. In ruling on the motion, the trial court specifically stated that it did not apply any such arbitrary preference for the relatives. Rather, the trial court stat ed, as it had at the hearing, that its decision was based upon the relatives’ home study and their testimony, including testimony that siblings of the children lived in the same city in Massachusetts with other relatives.
There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s findings that it was in the children’s best interests to place them with their relatives, and thus, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the change in custody. See In the Interest of K.H., 320 So. 2d 868, 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); see also Zediker v. Zediker, 444 So. 2d 1034, 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (reviewing the trial court’s factual findings concerning the best interests of the children in a custody dispute for competent substantial evidence); V. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 427 So. 2d 1082, 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (reviewing the trial court’s ultimate grant of permanent custody to the foster parents for an abuse of discretion).
The argument of the Department of Children and Families, here the appel-lee, that the trial court violated the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children is not proper because the Department did not raise an objection below and did not appeal or move for joinder as an appellant. See Premier Indus. v. Mead, 595 So. 2d 122, 123, 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (stating that a party who neither appealed the order nor moved for joinder as an appellant and who is aligned with the appellant’s position may not argue for reversal).
AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD, PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of M.V.-B. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 19 So. 3d 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…mited to that provided by common law certiorari. We recognize that similar issues have been reviewed and affirmed in at least two appeals in other districts where the issue of jurisdiction is not discussed. See M.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 906 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); S.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 852 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Likewise, it would appear that a parent may have the ability to challenge the initial placement of the child when that decision is included within the dep…
-
W.K. and M.K. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 230 So. 3d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…rring custody of the child. Because the foster parents lack standing, we dismiss their appeal. The GAL also challenges the transfer of custody. An order transferring custody is reviewed for abuse of discretion. M.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 906 So. 2d 1226, 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). A trial court does not abuse its discretion where competent substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the change in custody is in the best interests of the child. Id. The GAL claims that it is in the ch…
-
Litem v. J.H., 935 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…an extended term of imprisonment. REVERSED and REMANDED. MONACO, J., concurs. COBB, W.H., Senior Judge, dissents with opinion. . Jurisdiction is based on Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.146(b). . See M.A. v. Dept. of Children & Families, 906 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). . While in this case the evidence established actual serious physical injury to the mother, such evidence is not essential to establishing domestic violence in a dependency setting. See F.R. . The Ninth Circuit has a domestic…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Zediker v. Zediker, 444 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Evans v. State, 427 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Premier Indus. & Sentry Claims Serv. v. Mead, 595 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- In the Interest of K. H., 320 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)