B.J., APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, APPELLEES
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 mother appeals the denial of her motion for reunification with her younger daughter in a dependency case. The court reversed, finding insufficient evidence that placement with the mother would endanger the child's safety or well-being under Florida Statute § 39.521.
The court held that there was insufficient evidence on the record to warrant a determination that placement with the mother would endanger the child's safety, well-being, or physical, mental, or emotional health. Therefore, the court reversed the denial of reunification and vacated the custody release order.
[1] A court must first determine if a non-custodial parent desires to assume custody of a child and, if so, shall place the child with that parent unless placement would enda…
[2] A juvenile court's failure to comply with statutory requirements regarding placement of a child with a non-custodial parent necessitates remand for an expedited hearing.
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“If there is a parent with whom the child was not residing at the time the events or conditions arose that brought the child within the jurisdiction of the court who desires to assume custody of the child, the court shall place the child with that parent upon completion of a home study, unless the court finds that such placement would endanger the safety, well-being, or physical, mental, or emotional health of the child.”
Establishes the statutory framework requiring placement with non-custodial parent absent endangerment
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceB.J. (Mother) sought to assume custody of her younger daughter, T.W., after the child was adjudicated dependent. The circuit court denied the mother's…
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 Dependency Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
CORTIÑAS, J.
B.J. (the “Mother”), appeals the portion of the circuit court’s order on modification of placement (the “Modification Order”) denying her motion for reunification with her younger daughter, T.W. (the “Younger Daughter”), a minor, and the custody release order granting temporary custody of the Younger Daughter to D.W., a paternal aunt.
Section 39.521 of the Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part:
3) When any child is adjudicated by a court to be dependent, the court shall determine the appropriate placement for the child as follows:
(b) If there is a parent with whom the child was not residing at the time the events or conditions arose that brought the child within the jurisdiction of the court who desires to assume custody of the child, the court shall place the child with that parent upon completion of a home study, unless the court finds that such placement would endanger the safety, well-being, or physical, mental, or emotional health of the child. Any party with knowledge of the facts may present to the court evidence regarding whether the placement will endanger the safety, well-being, or physical, mental, or emotional health of the child.
§ 39.521, Fla. Stat. (2006). We find insufficient evidence on the record to warrant a determination that placement of the Younger Daughter with the Mother “would endanger the safety, well-being, or physical, mental, or emotional health of the child.” See Id.; Roberts v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 687 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the Modification Order denying the Mother’s motion for reunification with her Younger Daughter and vacate the custody release order.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S.P. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 17 So. 3d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…Children & Families, 979 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (reviewing denial of motion for extraordinary relief and reunification sought by appeal; affirming order but remanding for required factual findings); B.J. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 974 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (reviewing, inter alia, portion of modification order which denied a motion for reunification, sought by appeal; reversing portion of modification order denying motion for reunification for insufficient evidence); C.D. v. Dep’t of…
Authorities Cited
- Roberts v. Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 687 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)