J.S., MOTHER OF G.R.Z. A MINOR CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA 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.
In a child dependency case, the Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded a trial court order that terminated protective services supervision, finding that the trial court erred by terminating services at a status hearing without notice to the mother that termination would be considered.
Yes. The trial court erred in terminating protective services at a status hearing for which the Mother was not given notice that termination of services would be considered. The order terminating protective services is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
[1] A trial court errs by terminating protective services at a status hearing without providing notice to a parent that termination of services would be considered.
[2] An order denying a motion for reunification in a child dependency case, which also reserves jurisdiction to determine visitation, may be reviewed by certiorari.
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 trial court erred in terminating protective services at a status hearing for which the Mother was not given notice that termination of services would be considered”
States the core holding regarding the trial court's error in terminating protective services without notice
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Mother sought review of two orders: (1) a non-final order denying her motion for reunification and placing the child in the father's custody, and …
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 Motion For Reunification cases and more on FLexlaw
In this child dependency case, Appellant, the Mother, seeks review of a non-final order denying her motion for reunification and placing the child in the custody of his father, as well as a partial final order terminating protective services supervision based on the child’s placement. We reverse and remand for further proceedings because, as the Department of Children and Families and the Guardian Ad Litem properly concede, the trial court erred in terminating protective services at a status hearing for which the Mother was not given notice that termination of services would be considered. See T.S. v. Guardian Ad Litem, 49 So.3d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
In light of this disposition, we decline to address the merits of the order denying the Mother’s motion for reunification and placing the child with his father at this time. The Mother did not timely seek review of this order,1 and although we could have reviewed the order as part of our review of the termination order,2 we conclude that the better course in light of our reversal of the termination order is to defer review of the reunification order until the trial court enters an order fully disposing of the custody and visitations issues.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
WOLF, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.M. v. Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 189 So. 3d 134 (Fla. 2016)…n’s sole discretion. The Third District recognized that there was a conflict among' the district courts regarding the process by which orders in dependency proceedings are reviewed. Id. at 841 n. 1 (citing J.S. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 75 So. 3d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); S.P. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Family Services, 17 So. 3d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); R.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 19 So. 3d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); M.V.-B. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 19 So. 3d 381 (Fla. 2d…
-
In the Interest of D.O. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 201 So. 3d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…point, the First -District has held that “the trial court erred in terminating protective services at a status hearing for which the Mother was not given notice that termination of services would be considered.” J.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 75 So. 3d 808, 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citing T.S. v. Guardian Ad Litem, 49 So. 3d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)). The Department and the Guardian ad Litem conceded error in J.S. Accordingly, we reverse the order terminating supervision and jurisdiction and remand fo…
-
W.W. Father of N.S. v. Guardian AD Litem Program & Dep't of Child. & Families, 159 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…red on a post-dependency motion seeking authorized relief that fully resolves the issues raised in the motion is generally reviewed by appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(4). See J.S. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 75 So. 3d 808, 809 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); D.T. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 54 So. 3d 632, 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (affirming order denying motion for reunification); see also R.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 19 So. 3d 1029, 1031 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (…
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
- Duncan v. Pullum, 198 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- In the Interest of M.V.-B. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 19 So. 3d 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- T.H. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 736 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Monfiston v. State, 54 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- D.T. Mother of N.N. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 54 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Moore v. State, 17 So. 3d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- R.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 19 So. 3d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
- T.S. v. Guardian AD Litem & Dep't of Child. & Families, 49 So. 3d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- A.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 834 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)