F.E., PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES 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.
A mother challenges an order terminating the Department of Children and Families' supervision of her dependent child, specifically objecting to the denial of all visitation rights. The court denies certiorari relief but amends the order to clarify the mother's retained right to seek future modification of visitation restrictions under Florida law.
The court upheld the denial of present visitation as not constituting an abuse of discretion based on expert and lay testimony regarding the child's fear of the mother and potential mental distress. However, the court struck the portion of the order limiting future contact requests to the father's discretion, clarifying that the mother retains the statutory right to seek modification or elimination of visitation restrictions under section 39.621(9), Florida Statutes.
[1] An order terminating a department's supervision of a child, which includes provisions regarding visitation, may be reviewed by certiorari if not directly appealable.
[2] A court does not abuse its discretion by denying a parent any present visitation with a child when extensive expert and lay testimony indicates the child fears the parent…
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“we find no abuse of discretion in the refusal to grant the mother any present visitation based on extensive expert and lay testimony that, because of severe physical abuse, the child is in fear of the mother and would suffer serious mental distress from any personal contact with her”
Establishes the standard for and upholds the denial of present visitation based on the child's wellbeing and fear of the mother
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA 10-year-old dependent child was the subject of a dependency proceeding. The trial court entered an order terminating DCF supervision and granting cu…
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 Modification Of Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
A dependent’s mother seeks review of an order terminating the Department of Children and Families’ supervision of her 10-year-old daughter. She complains about the aspect which granted her no visitation with the child whatsoever. Because this order is not appealable, we treat the proceeding as one which seeks certio-rari review, but deny relief. In contrast to A.L. v. Department of Children and Family Services, 805 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), and B.M. v. Department of Children and Families, 981 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), we find no abuse of discretion in the refusal to grant the mother any present visitation based on extensive expert and lay testimony that, because of severe physical abuse, the child is in fear of the mother and would suffer serious mental distress from any personal contact with her.
We do, however, strike that part of the order1 which appears to limit her ability to seek contact with the child in the future to the discretion of the custodial father. In fact, because her parental rights have not been terminated, and as the order otherwise states, she retains the unqualified ability to seek a modification or elimination of any restrictions under section 39.621(9), Florida Statutes (2008).2
Certiorari denied; order amended.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.M. v. Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 189 So. 3d 134 (Fla. 2016)…ren & Family Services, 17 So. 3d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); R.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 19 So. 3d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); M.V.-B. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 19 So. 3d 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); F.E. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 1 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)). In F.E., the Third District concluded that an order terminating supervision is not ap-pealable because such orders do not necessarily conclude dependency proceedings. Id. (citing §§ 39.521, 39.621, Fla. Stat. (2014);. Fla. R. Ju…1 / 2
-
M.M. v. Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs., 170 So. 3d 840 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…of Children & Families, 17 So. 3d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); R.M. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 19 So. 3d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); M.V.-B v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 19 So. 3d 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); F.E. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 1 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Because an order terminating supervision does not necessarily end a dependency proceeding, see §§ 39.521, 39.621, Fla. Stat. (2014); Fla R. Juv. P. 8.345, and based on this court’s conclusion in F.E. that such an order is not app…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of J.C. and W.B.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 805 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Jeanty v. State, 981 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)