DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, PETITIONER,
v.
M.L., MOTHER, AND THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, RESPONDENTS
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.
Florida appellate court denied DCFS's petition to reinstate supervision over a child three years after termination, holding that retained jurisdiction does not permit abbreviated case plan amendments without full due process protections in a new dependency proceeding.
Retained jurisdiction from a prior dependency order does not authorize DCFS to reinstate supervision through an amended case plan without initiating a new dependency proceeding with full due process protections.
[1] Retained jurisdiction in a prior dependency order does not authorize reinstatement of supervision through an amended case plan without initiating a new dependency proceed…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Section 39.6013 contemplates amendments to a case plan still in effect, a circumstance not present here.”
Court's explanation of why DCFS's statutory argument fails
DCFS sought to reinstate supervision over minor N.P. three years after a dependency order terminating supervision, based on a new domestic violence in…
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 Retention Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEPHERD, J.
The Florida Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) seeks certiorari relief from a dependency court order squelching DCFS’s attempt to reinstate supervision over a minor child, N.P., three years after entry of an order terminating supervision based upon a provision in the earlier order in which the court “expressly retained] jurisdiction of th[e] cause for the purpose of making such further or other orders as may be necessary for the welfare of the child[ ].” N.P. recently was brought into shelter care as a result of a domestic violence incident. The protective order entered three years earlier emanated from a completely unrelated DUI and child neglect incident, and upon both parent and child being afforded the full panoply of rights due them in a dependency proceeding.
DCFS argues that because the trial court retained jurisdiction three years earlier, DCFS simply can proceed based upon an amended case plan. See § 39.6013, Fla. Stat. (2007). We disagree. Section 39.6013 contemplates amendments to a case plan still in effect, a circumstance not present here. We further agree with the reasoning of the Fourth District Court of Appeal that sanctioning the abridged process sought by DCFS constitutes a denial of due process to both the parent and child in this case. See A.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 721 So. 2d 414, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The trial court properly ordered DCFS to initiate a new dependency proceeding.
Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.L. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 53 So. 3d 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…utilized in this case was confusing and counter to the mother’s reasonable understanding of the case plan. The procedures utilized in a dependency action must comport with due process principles. See, e.g., Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. M.L., 984 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). DCF asserts lack of significant prejudice to the mother, who did not lose her parental rights and who can move for modification if and when she achieves all the goals of the case plan. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.430(b). However, even…
Authorities Cited
- A.G. natural father of C.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 721 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)