T.M., 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.
T.M. appeals the trial court's order denying termination of protective supervision over her two sons and requiring continued visitation with their maternal grandmother. The Fourth District affirmed the continuation of protective supervision but reversed the visitation requirement, holding that grandparent visitation rights terminate when a child is returned to parental custody.
The court affirmed the continuation of protective supervision as supported by the record and in the children's best interests. However, the court reversed the visitation order, holding that grandparent visitation rights terminate when a child is returned to the physical custody of a parent.
[1] A trial court's determination to continue protective supervision is supported when the record demonstrates that maintaining such supervision is in the children's best int…
[2] Grandparent visitation rights, generally granted when a child is adjudicated dependent and removed from a parent's custody, terminate when the child is returned to the ph…
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“Generally, a grandparent is entitled to reasonable visitation with a grandchild who has been adjudicated dependent and taken from the physical custody of the parent.”
Establishes the general rule supporting grandparent visitation rights in 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 intelligenceT.M.'s two sons were adjudicated dependent on June 5, 2003, and placed with their maternal grandmother. The children were subsequently returned to T.M…
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 Termination Of Protective Supervision cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, C.J.
T.M.’s two sons, J.L.l and J.L.2, were adjudicated dependent on June 5, 2003, and placed with their maternal grandmother. When the children were returnéd to T.M.’s custody, the grandmother initially had an “understanding” with T.M. for visitation privileges. Following a hearing on June 13, 2005, the General Master filed a report stating visitation was “NA-Children are in the home.” A subsequent report was filed on July 11, 2005, requiring that the grandmother continue to have the visitation she had prior to the June 13, 2005 hearing and stating that it was not in the children’s best interests for the court to terminate protective supervision. T.M. now appeals the trial court’s order denying termination of supervision and requiring continued visitation for the grandmother.
We affirm the continuation of protective supervision as the record supports the trial court’s determination that maintaining protective supervision is in the children’s best interests.
We reverse, however, the visitation order. “Generally, a grandparent is entitled to reasonable visitation with a grandchild who has been adjudicated dependent and taken from the physical custody of the parent.” In re S.D., 869 So. 2d 39, 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (referencing 39.509, Fla. Stat.).
However, as we stated in L.B. v. C.A., 738 So. 2d 425, 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), those visitation rights terminate “when a child has been returned to the physical custody of a parent or others.” Accordingly, we agree that once the children were returned to T.M.’s custody, the trial court erred in ordering her to provide the grandmother with visitation.
In light of our reversal of this portion of the trial court’s order, we need not reach the merits of the final issue raised.1
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part.
GUNTHER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. . In her final point on appeal,'the mother challenges the constitutionality of section 39.509, Florida Statutes, which provides that grandparents are entitled to reasonable visitation with a grandchild who has been adjudicated dependent and taken away from the physical custody of the parent. This issue, now moot, was not raised in the trial court and therefore was not properly preserved for appeal. See State v. Turner, 224 So. 2d 290 (Fla.1969).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.G. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families & the Guardian Ad Litem Program, 16 So. 3d 972 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…dent child and [has been] taken from the physical custody of the parent.” However, all such visitation rights terminate “when a child has been returned to the physical custody of his or her parent.” § 39.509(4); T.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 927 So. 2d 1088, 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (reversing visitation order in favor of maternal grandmother after the child was returned to the physical control of the mother); accord L.B. v. C.A., 738 So. 2d 425, 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also Von Eiff v. Azicri, 72…
-
L.D. v. Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families & Fla. Guardian ad Litem Program, 24 So. 3d 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…dent child and [has been] taken from the physical custody of the parent.” However, all such visitation rights terminate “when a child has been returned to the physical custody of his or her parent.” § 39.509(4); T.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 927 So. 2d 1088, 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (reversing visitation order in favor of maternal grandmother after the child was returned to the physical control of the mother); accord L.B. v. C.A., 738 So. 2d 425, 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also Von Eiff v. Azicri, 72…
-
M.H. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 13 So. 3d 1099 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…hasis added). Accordingly, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law when it ordered visitation with the paternal grandmother once the child was returned to M.H.’s physical custody. See T.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 927 So. 2d 1088, 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); L.B. v. C.A., 738 So. 2d 425, 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 72, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000) (reaffirming parents’ fundamental right to make decisions concerning care, custody…
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. & Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm'n v. Turner, 224 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1969)
- L.B. and B.B. v. C.A. & Dep't of Child. & Families, 738 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- In the Interest of S.D. v. K.S., 869 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)