M.M., MOTHER OF B.D. AND S.D., CHILDREN, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, ET AL., 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 mother appealed the permanent award of custody of her two children to their non-offending father, challenging the trial court's failure to determine whether she had substantially complied with her reunification case plan or whether reunification would be detrimental to the children as required by Florida law.
The trial court erred by awarding permanent custody to the non-offending father without making the required findings. Before awarding permanent custody to a non-offending parent when the offending parent has a reunification goal and has substantially complied with the case plan, the trial court must determine whether reunification would be detrimental to the children.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by permanently awarding custody to a non-offending parent when the offending parent has a case plan goal of reunification and has s…
[2] Before permanently awarding custody to a non-offending parent, a trial court must determine whether the offending parent has substantially complied with their case plan.
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“it is reversible error to permanently award custody to a non-offending parent when the offending parent has a case plan goal of reunification and has either substantially complied with the plan, or where the time for compliance has not yet expired — -at least without a finding that reunification would be detrimental to the children”
Establishes the controlling legal standard requiring specific findings before permanent custody can be awarded to a non-offending parent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM.M. is the mother of two children, B.D. and S.D. A dependency case was filed, and the mother was given a case plan with a reunification goal. The Dep…
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 Reunification Goal cases and more on FLexlaw
M.M., the mother of B.D. and S.D., appeals a final order awarding permanent custody of her two middle children to their *1201non-offending father under section 39.521(3), Florida Statutes, and terminating jurisdiction over her dependency case. The final order was entered at a hearing on the mother’s motion for reunification with her children, which alleged that she had substantially complied with her case plan. The Department of Children and Families (DCF) had also reported the mother’s substantial compliance with the case plan. The trial court, however, never determined whether the mother had substantially complied with her case plan or whether reunification would be detrimental to the children, as required by section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes. This court has repeatedly held that it is reversible error to permanently award custody to a non-offending parent when the offending parent has a case plan goal of reunification and has either substantially complied with the plan, or where the time for compliance has not yet expired — -at least without a finding that reunification would be detrimental to the children. E.g., K.E. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 958 So.2d 968, 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); R.H. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 948 So.2d 898, 900 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); D.G. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 903 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); D.S. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 900 So.2d 628, 631-32 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Accordingly, we reverse the final order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this binding precedent. On remand, the trial court must first determine whether the mother has substantially complied with her case plan before proceeding further.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of E.G-S. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 113 So. 3d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…t a court may not place a child permanently with a nonoffending parent when the offending parent is either in substantial compliance with a reunification case plan or the time for compliance has not expired. See M.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 29 So. 3d 1200, 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (and cases cited therein). In A.L., the court examined facts very similar to those in this case. The children had been found dependent based on their mother’s actions and the circuit court had placed them in the custody of…
-
A.L. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 53 So. 3d 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…stantially complied with a case plan that has the goal of reunification is entitled to reunification with the dependent child absent a determination that reunification would be detrimental to the child. See also M.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 29 So. 3d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Where the offending parent has not yet substantially complied with the case plan and the time for such compliance has not expired, if a party or the court concludes that reunification with the offending parent would no longer be…
-
In the Interest of A.F. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian ad Litem Program, 39 So. 3d 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…the terms of the case plan to the extent that the safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health of the child is not endangered by the return of the child to the home.” (Emphasis added.) See also M.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 29 So. 3d 1200, 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (“[I]t is reversible error to permanently award custody to a non-offending parent when the offending parent has a ease plan goal of reunification and has ... substantially complied with the plan ... without a finding that r…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- R.H. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 948 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Jeter v. State, 958 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- D.S. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 900 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- D.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 903 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- McKEEHAN v. State, 903 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)