D.G., 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 father challenged a trial court's order granting his deceased wife's parents unsupervised visitation rights with his minor child after he regained physical custody through a reunification order in a dependency proceeding. The court held that Florida law terminates grandparent visitation rights once a child is returned to a parent's physical custody, and therefore quashed the visitation order.
The court held that Florida law terminates all grandparent visitation rights when a child is returned to the physical custody of a parent, and the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by awarding unsupervised visitation to the grandparents after the father regained physical custody of the child.
[1] Non-final orders in dependency proceedings entered before the termination of supervision or jurisdiction may be challenged by common law certiorari when appropriate.
[2] To grant a writ of certiorari, a court must find a departure from the essential requirements of law that will cause material injury uncorrectable on post-judgment appeal.
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“all such visitation rights terminate "when a child has been returned to the physical custody of his or her parent."”
Establishes the controlling statutory rule that grandparent visitation rights automatically end upon return of the child to parental custody.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA dependency proceeding was instituted against the father in October 2008 due to the mother's death and the father's history of drug use. The trial co…
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 Common Law Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
D.G. (“the father”) seeks a writ of certio-rari, quashing the trial court’s non-final order granting the maternal grandparents unsupervised weekly and biweekly visitation rights with the father’s minor child, J.G. (“the child”). We grant the petition.
A dependency proceeding was instituted against the father by the respondent, Department of Children and Families, in October 2008. In light of the mother being deceased and the father’s history of drug use, the trial court removed the child from the father’s custody and granted the maternal grandparents temporary custody. The father consented to the child’s dependency status the following month. In May 2009, the trial court granted the father’s motion for reunification, awarding him temporary custody of the child, but, in a separate visitation order, granted the maternal grandparents biweekly unsupervised visits. In June 2009, the father’s motion for suspension of visitation was denied and a second modified weekly and biweekly unsupervised visitation order was granted by the trial court. The father’s petition for writ of certiorari followed.
“[0]rders entered in dependency proceedings after the entry of the order adjudicating dependency and before an order terminating supervision or jurisdiction are not appealable pursuant to [Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure] 9.130(a)(4). When appropriate, such orders may be challenged by common law certiorari.” C.V. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., — So.3d-, 2009 WL 1606545 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (footnote omitted). To grant a writ of certiorari, this Court must find that: (1) the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law; (2) this departure will result in material injury for the remainder of the case; and (3) the departure cannot be corrected on post-judgment appeal. See Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So.2d 812, 822 (Fla.2004) (citing Bd. of Regents v. Snyder, 826 So.2d 382, 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). As we find that the non-final order granting the maternal grandparents unsupervised visitation satisfies this standard, we grant the father’s petition for writ of cer-tiorari and quash the order.
Section 39.509, Florida Statutes (2008), entitles grandparents to reasonable visitation rights, subject to certain exceptions when the grandchild “has been adjudicated a dependent child and [has been] taken from the physical custody of the parent.” However, all such visitation rights terminate “when a child has been returned to the physical custody of his or her parent.” § 39.509(4); T.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 927 So.2d 1088, 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (reversing visitation order in favor of maternal grandmother after the child was returned to the physical control of the mother); accord L.B. v. C.A., 738 So.2d 425, 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also Von Eiff v. Azicri, 720 So.2d 510, 514 (Fla.1998) (“Neither the legislature nor the courts may properly intervene in parental decisionmaking absent significant harm to the child threatened by or resulting from those decisions”).
In the instant case, because the record unambiguously states that the father regained physical custody of the child pursuant to the reunification order of June 2009 and because the father was not found to be posing a threat of harm to the child at the time, we hold that the trial court departed *974from the essential requirements of the law in awarding the grandparents unsupervised weekly and bi-weekly visitation rights.
Petition granted; order quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
L.D. v. Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families & Fla. Guardian ad Litem Program, 24 So. 3d 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…departed from the essential requirements of the law; (2) this departure will result in material injury for the remainder of the case; and (3) the departure cannot be corrected on post-judgment appeal. See D.G. v. Department of Children and Families, 16 So. 3d 972, 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Florida law makes no provision for visitation between unrelated parties. A court has “no authority to compel visitation between a child and one who is neither a parent, grandparent, or great-grandparent. Visitation rights a…1 / 2
-
R.N. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 113 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…09) (holding that “orders entered in dependency proceedings after the entry of the order adjudicating dependency and before an order terminating supervision or jurisdiction are not appealable” non-final orders); D.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 16 So. 3d 972, 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (same). Accordingly, we will treat the appeal as a timely filed petition for writ of certiorari. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.040(c); S.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 950 So. 2d 1267, 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (treating mother’s…
-
A.G. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families & Guardian ad Litem Program, 252 So. 3d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…ourt departed from the essential requirements of the law; (2) this departure will result in material injury for the remainder of the case; and (3) the departure cannot be corrected on post-judgment appeal. See D.G. v. Dept. of Children and Families, 16 So. 3d 972, 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). The order in question arises out of a February 27, 2018 hearing in which the trial court ordered the case plan to be changed from one of unification to one of adoption. DCF properly concedes that the order at issue constitu…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes OF Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 2004)
- von Eiff v. Leonor Azicri and Roberto Azicri, 720 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1998)
- Bd. OF Regents OF the State of Fla. v. Snyder, 826 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- L.B. and B.B. v. C.A. & Dep't of Child. & Families, 738 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- T.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 927 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)