IN THE INTEREST OF A.F., A CHILD. L.K., 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 Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's termination of protective supervision and permanent custody award to the child's father, finding that the trial court failed to determine whether the mother substantially complied with her case plan or consider the best interests of the child as required by statute.
The trial court erred and the order must be reversed and remanded. On remand, the trial court must determine whether the Mother substantially complied with her case plan and, if so, whether reunification would be in the manifest best interests of A.F.
[1] A court must determine whether a parent has substantially complied with a case plan before terminating protective supervision and awarding permanent custody to another pa…
[2] A trial court commits reversible error by awarding permanent custody to a non-offending parent without first determining if the offending parent has substantially complie…
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“In cases where the issue before the court is whether a child should be reunited with a parent, the court shall determine whether the parent has substantially complied with 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.”
This quote establishes the statutory requirement that the trial court must determine substantial compliance with the case plan before awarding custody to a non-offending parent.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceL.K. (the Mother) had a case plan with a reunification goal for her daughter A.F. The trial court terminated protective supervision and awarded perman…
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 Termination Of Protective Supervision cases and more on FLexlaw
L.K., the Mother, appeals the trial court’s order that terminated protective supervision and awarded permanent custody of her daughter, A.F., to the child’s father. She argues that the trial court erred by entering this order without determining whether she had substantially complied with her case plan and without considering the best interests of the child. Both the Department of Children and Family Services and the Guardian ad Li-tem have conceded error based on the plain language of section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2007), which provides that “[i]n cases where the issue before the court is whether a child should be reunited with a parent, the court shall determine whether the parent has substantially complied with 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 reunification would be detrimental to the children.”).
Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court must hold a hearing to determine whether the Mother has substantially complied with her case plan and, if so, whether reunification would be in the manifest best interests of A.F.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
SILBERMAN and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S.V.-R. v. Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs., 77 So. 3d 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…rate was obligated to allow reunification with the mother unless that would “endanger” K.B. as described in section 39.522(2). Our application of these statutes is generally consistent with the analysis of the Second and Fifth Districts. In re A.F., 39 So. 3d 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); M.M. v. Dep’t of 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…
-
In the Interest of G.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 73 So. 3d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…l to the child, it is reversible error to permanently award custody to a nonoffending parent when the offending parent has a case plan goal of reunification and has substantially complied with the plan. See L.K. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 39 So. 3d 1288, 1289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). [*323] Here, the order denying the Mother’s motion did not include any of the required findings under either statute. It included neither the mandatory factors in section 39.621(10) nor the requisite finding under section 3…
Authorities Cited
- Ortiz v. State, 29 So. 3d 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- M.M. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 29 So. 3d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)