J.C., FATHER OF C.C., K.C., J.B., H.C., ETC., 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.
The court reversed the dependency court's denial of reunification with the father because the lower court lacked substantial evidence to support its finding and improperly relied on the mother's prior conduct rather than the father's demonstrated compliance with his case plan.
A dependency court must base its reunification decision on substantial, competent evidence of the parent's current circumstances and progress, not solely on issues existing at case initiation or a prior failed reunification involving a different parent.
[1] A dependency court must base reunification decisions on substantial, competent evidence of the parent's current progress and circumstances rather than solely on issues ex…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 the absence of substantial, competent evidence to support the conclusions of the trial judge, we are constrained to reverse.”
Court's explanation for reversing the dependency court's order denying reunification.
The father complied with his case plan and the Department of Children and Families had no evidence that reunification would jeopardize his five childr…
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
Appellant appeals an order from the dependency court placing his five children in permanent guardianship with their paternal aunt and terminating Department of Children and Families supervision. He argues that the court erred in denying his request for reunification. We agree and reverse.
During the hearing on Appellant’s motion for reunification, Appellee acknowledged that Appellant had complied with his case plan and that it had no evidence to support its position that reunification would jeopardize the children. Nevertheless, the lower court denied reunification with Appellant without evidence to support its finding. In doing so, it improperly relied solely on issues existing at the time the dependency case was initiated, without regard to Appellant’s progress in overcoming those issues. C.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 974 So.2d 495, 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The lower court also improperly relied upon a failed prior reunification attempt. The record indicates that the children previously were reunified with both their parents and were subsequently removed because of the mother’s actions. Appellant and the children’s mother are no longer together. In fact, the mother had relocated to Georgia at the time of the hearing. In the absence of substantial, competent evidence to support the conclusions of the trial judge, we are constrained to reverse.
*1278Accordingly, we reverse and remand the challenged orders with instruction that the trial court grant Appellant’s motion for reunification.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ORFINGER, C.J., TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.