IN THE INTEREST OF A.M., A CHILD. M.M., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES 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.
The court reversed a permanent guardianship order because the trial court failed to make required written findings explaining why reunification was not possible, and the Department failed to prove that reunification would endanger the child.
A trial court must make written findings explaining why reunification is not possible before placing a child in permanent guardianship, and the Department must prove reunification would endanger the child.
[1] Section 39.6221(2)(a), Florida Statutes, requires written findings explaining why reunification is not possible before a child may be placed in permanent guardianship.
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“the Department did not meet its burden of proving that reunification would endanger the child”
Court's explanation for why permanent guardianship was not supported by competent, substantial evidence
M.M., the Father, appealed a trial court order placing his child A.M. in permanent guardianship and terminating protective supervision.…
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 Protective Supervision cases and more on FLexlaw
M.M., the Father, seeks review of the trial court’s order which placed A.M. in a permanent guardianship and terminated protective supervision over the child. The Father argues that the trial court erred in failing to make written findings explaining why reunification was not possible. The Department and the Guardian ad Litem concede error. We find these concessions to be proper because written findings are required by section 39.6221(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2008).
Ordinarily, we would simply reverse and remand for the court to make the necessary written findings in compliance with section 39.6221(2)(a). However, both the Department and the Guardian ad Litem also concede that, even if the court had complied with section 39.6221(2)(a), competent, substantial evidence did not support A.M.’s placement in a permanent guardianship. We find these concessions to be proper because the Department did not meet its burden of proving that reunification would endanger the child. See C.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 974 So.2d 495, 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Therefore, the order placing the child in a permanent guardianship is reversed. On remand, the *810trial court should grant the Father’s motion for reunification.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
VILLANTI and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.A. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 27 So. 3d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…ve years without any problems. The trial court acknowledged that the child is bonded to the mother. It is well-settled that the Department has the burden of proving that reunification with the parent would endanger [*243] the child. See In re A.M., 5 So. 3d 809, 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (reversing permanent guardianship and ordering reunification where there was no competent substantial evidence in the record to support a determination that, at the time of the permanency hearing, reunification would have end…
-
C.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 41 So. 3d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…Families, 27 So. 3d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); R.T. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 27 So. 3d 195 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); In re: J.S., 18 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); In re: R.B., 6 So. 3d 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); A.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 5 So. 3d 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). The state also concedes, and we agree, that the record does not contain competent, substantial evidence to support the lower court’s order of permanent guardianship. The lower court ordered permanency for two reasons. First, it…
Authorities Cited
- C.D. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 974 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)