T.S., FATHER OF C.J., A CHILD, 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.
A father appealed a trial court's denial of his request for temporary custody of his dependent child, challenging the court's application of the best interests standard rather than the statutory standard for non-offending parents. The appellate court granted relief, holding that section 39.521(3)(b) establishes a presumptive right to custody for non-offending parents that does not require a separate best interests analysis.
The trial court erred by applying the best interest standard instead of the statutory standard in section 39.521(3)(b). Under the correct standard, a non-offending parent has a presumptive right to custody upon request unless the court finds that placement would endanger the child's safety, well-being, or physical, mental, or emotional health. This presumptive right is not subject to a separate best interest determination.
[1] A trial court must apply the standard set forth in section 39.521(3)(b), Florida Statutes, when considering a custody request by a non-offending parent in a dependency pr…
[2] A non-offending parent has a presumptive right to custody of a dependent child, which is not subject to a separate best interest of the child determination.
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“Section 39.521(3)(b) requires the court to place a child who is adjudicated to be dependent, as to one parent, with the non-residential parent upon request 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 standard and presumptive right for non-offending parents seeking custody.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Children and Families sheltered a three-year-old child based on the mother's abandonment and the father's unknown residence, initial…
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
COHEN, J.
T.S., a non-offending parent, challenges the trial court’s order denying the Department of Children and Families’ motion to grant him temporary custody/placement of the minor child. We treat the appeal as a petition for certiorari and grant relief because the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by applying the best interest of the child standard under section 39.522(1), Florida Statutes (2007), instead of the standard set forth in section 39.521(3)(b) with regard to a non-offending parent who requests custody.
Based upon allegations of the mother’s abandonment and the father’s unknown residence, the Department sheltered the three-year-old minor and placed him with non-relatives. The mother failed to comply with her case plan. The Department learned that the father, who lived in Ohio, desired to obtain custody of the child and initiated a study of his home pursuant to section 409.401, et seq., Florida Statutes (2007), the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (“ICPC”).
The Department disapproved the first home study based upon issues in the home, but the father rectified the problems within a few months. The Department then sought a change of custody to the father with protective services supervision. The mother opposed the motion. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order rejecting the standard urged by the Department under section 39.521(3)(b), and instead employed the best interest standard under section 39.522(1).
Finding that some concerns expressed in the second home study were quite substantial and very troubling, the court concluded that a change in custody would not be in the child’s best interest.
Section 39.521(3)(b) requires the court to place a child who is adjudicated to be dependent, as to one parent, with the non-residential parent upon request unless the court “finds that such placement would endanger the safety, well-being, or physical, mental, or emotional health of the child.” M.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 777 So. 2d 1209, 1212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). The non-offending parent’s presumptive right to custody is not subject to a separate determination of the child’s best interests. B.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 864 So. 2d 486, 491 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
The trial court expressly rejected the correct standard in determining the non-offending father’s request for custody.
Accordingly, we grant certiorari and quash the trial court’s order denying the motion to change custody/placement.
CERTIORARI GRANTED, ORDER QUASHED, and REMANDED.
PALMER, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- B.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 864 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- M.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 777 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)