C.S., MOTHER OF C.N., MINOR CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 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.
Mother C.S. appealed an order placing her son in permanent guardianship with paternal grandparents. The appellate court reversed, holding that the lower court's order violated statutory requirements for case-specific findings and lacked competent, substantial evidence to support permanent guardianship, particularly where the stated grounds were housing and employment issues without evidence the Department offered services to remedy the deficiency.
The court reversed the permanent guardianship order, holding that the lower court's written order failed to comply with statutory requirements for case-specific findings and that the record lacked competent, substantial evidence to support permanent guardianship. The court determined that removal cannot be based on homelessness or unemployment derived solely from financial inability unless the Department offered services and they were rejected.
[1] A court order for permanent guardianship must contain case-specific findings required by statute.
[2] A finding of non-compliance with visitation terms requires evidence of specific visitation terms and actual visits.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 lower court's written order did not comply with section 39.6221(2), which requires case-specific findings”
Establishes the first basis for reversal—procedural noncompliance with statutory requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMother C.S. entered a case plan on September 9, 2009, with a reunification goal requiring her to complete anger management, psychological evaluation, …
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 Permanent Guardianship cases and more on FLexlaw
C.S. appeals an order placing her son, C.N., in permanent guardianship pursuant to section 39.6221, Florida Statutes (2010). We reverse.
Appellant entered into a case plan on September 9, 2009, with the goal of reunification. The case plan directed the mother to (1) attend anger management classes, (2) obtain a psychological evaluation, (3) obtain mental health counseling, (4) complete a substance abuse class, (5) complete a parenting class, (6) maintain stable housing for six months, (7) obtain a legal source of income, and (8) submit to random drug tests. The Department of Children and Families admitted at the permanency hearing that the mother had completed many of the tasks but had not completed a substance abuse class, nor had she obtained housing and a job. The mother contended that all of her random drug tests had been negative, and that failure to obtain housing and a job are financial issues that cannot be grounds for removing a child from a parent.
The lower court ordered that the child be placed in permanent guardianship with his paternal grandparents. On appeal, the state concedes, and we agree, that the lower court’s written order did not comply with section 39.6221(2), which requires case-specific findings. See C.A. v. Dept, of Children & 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 concluded that the mother had not complied with court-ordered terms of visitation. We find no terms of visitation in the record. Just three months earlier, the lower court had determined that the mother had complied with such terms. Because there are no terms of visitation in the record, nor any concrete evidence regarding the mother’s actual visits, there is insufficient evidence to support this finding.
The court’s other reason for ordering permanent guardianship is that the mother had not substantially complied with the case plan, “as evidenced by the JRSSR report filed for this hearing and incorporated by reference.” In the Judicial Review Social Study Report, the only concise statement by the Department regarding the reasons for permanent guardianship was that the mother was “partially compliant with the case plan however she has not obtained a safe and stable environment for the child to live in and has not obtained verifiable, legal employment in order to support the child.” Removal of a child from his or her parent for abuse, neglect, or abandonment cannot be established based on the parent’s homelessness “derived solely from a custodian’s financial inability ... unless the Department offers services to the homeless custodian and those services are rejected.” Brown v. Feaver, 726 So.2d 322, 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Accord, M.B. v. Dept. of Children & Family Servs., 985 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (quashing shelter order based upon mother’s homelessness due to her financial situation when there was no evidence that the Department had offered services to the mother to eliminate the need for sheltering the child); S.H. v. Dept. of Children & Families, 949 So.2d *370356 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (reversing order of dependency based upon the father’s unstable housing and employment because there was no evidence that the Department had offered services that the father rejected).
The Department did not put on any evidence showing that it had offered the mother services and been refused. The mother has clearly made efforts to improve her situation with the goal of reunification with her son. Accordingly, the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s order of permanent guardianship. See C.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 974 So.2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); AM, 5 So.3d at 809; In re: J.S., 18 So.3d at 714-15; In re: R.B., 6 So.3d at 737.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings regarding a permanent placement for the child, including the possibility of reunification.
HAWKES, C.J., PADOVANO and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T. J. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 193 So. 3d 1091 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…lant argues, and as the Department of Children and Families and Guardian ad Litem concede, reversal is warranted given the Department’s failure to produce evidence or testimony during the permanency hearing. See C.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 41 So. 3d 368, 368-69 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (noting that a trial court’s order of permanent guardianship must be supported by competent, substantial evidence); C.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 27 So. 3d 241, 242-43 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“It is well-settled that…
-
S.K. mother of C.H. and C.H. minor children v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 50 So. 3d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…ustody of the parents. The mother argues, and the Department properly concedes, that the record does not contain competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s order of permanent guardianship. See C.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 41 So. 3d 368, 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (a trial court’s order of permanent guardianship must be supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record); B.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 950 So. 2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (explaining that an appell…
-
In the Interest of C.A. and S.L. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 210 So. 3d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…ardianship for the trial court to make the necessary findings of fact required by section 39.6221 and remanding with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing if the trial court had not previously done so); C.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 41 So. 3d 368, 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (noting that a trial court’s order of permanent guardianship must be supported by competent, substantial evidence). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. WALLACE, CRENSHAW, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur. . Florida…
Authorities Cited
- C.D. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 974 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Rivera v. State, 726 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Rutig v. State, 18 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
- R.T., SR. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 27 So. 3d 195 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- C.A. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 27 So. 3d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- M.B. v. Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs., 985 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- In the Interest of A.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian ad Litem Program, 5 So. 3d 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Butler v. State, 6 So. 3d 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- S.H. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 949 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)