C.S., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The trial court's order denying reunification must be reversed and remanded if it fails to make specific written factual findings addressing the six statutory factors.
A mother sought reunification with her child in a dependency proceeding. After a hearing, the trial court found substantial completion of her case pla…
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 Case Plan Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
In this dependency proceeding, the mother sought reunification with her child. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found substantial completion of her case plan but denied relief without making specific written, factual findings as to why-reunification would not be in the best interests of her child. She appeals. We reverse.
In E.I. v. Department of Children and Families, 979 So.2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), we held that a court is obligated to comply with section 89.621(10), requiring the trial court to address and include in the written findings of fact the following six factors:
(a) compliance or noncompliance with the case plan;
(b) whether the circumstances causing the dependency have been resolved;
(c) length and stability of the child’s placement;
(d) preferences of the child if sufficiently mature and able to express a preference;
(e) recommendation of the current custodian; and
(f) recommendation of any guardian ad litem.
979 So.2d at 379. Even when it is not an abuse of discretion to deny reunification, we will reverse the order and remand for compliance with section 39.621(10) if the order fails to explicitly address the six factors. E.I., 979 So.2d at 379; see also C.D. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 974 So.2d 495, 501 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (explaining that when a trial court makes a conclusory finding that reunification is not in the best interest of the child, instead of documenting detailed factual findings as required by § 39.621(10), appellate courts *311should reverse the order and remand for application of the correct law and entry of appropriate factual findings). The order in this case is indistinguishable from the one in E. I.
Reversed.
HAZOURI and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T.N.L. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 132 So. 3d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…est” factors. See S.V.-R. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 77 So. 3d 687, 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that trial court “incorrectly applied the ‘best interest’ factors set forth in section 39.621(10)”); C.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 12 So. 3d 309, 310 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (reversing denial of reunification where trial court failed to make “specific written, factual findings as to why reunification would not be in the best interests of [the] child,” as required under section 39.621(10)). Unde…
-
S.V.-R. v. Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs., 77 So. 3d 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…Children & Families, 29 So. 3d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).4 Two decisions of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, however, imply that the “best interests of the child” standard applies to reunification generally. C.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 12 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); E.I. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 979 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).5 In the case at hand, the appellees did not demonstrate, and the general magistrate did not find, that the “safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and…
Authorities Cited
- C.D. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 974 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- E.I. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 979 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)