C.C., FATHER OF J.C., A 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.
Florida appellate court reversed and remanded a permanent guardianship order because the trial court failed to include statutorily required detailed findings and failed to specify the frequency and nature of parental visitation as mandated by section 39.6221(2).
A final order placing a child in permanent guardianship must contain detailed findings under section 39.6221(2)(a) and must specify the frequency and nature of visitation between the child and parents under section 39.6221(2)(c).
[1] A final order establishing permanent guardianship of a child must contain detailed findings as required by section 39.6221(2)(a) and must specify the frequency and nature…
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“[S]pecify the frequency and nature of visitation or contact between the child and his or her parents”
Section 39.6221(2)(c) statutory requirement that trial court must specify in the final order
The trial court terminated the Department of Children and Families' protective supervision over J.C. and placed him in the permanent guardianship of h…
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 Parental Visitation Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
C.C., father of J.C., timely appeals a final order which terminated the Department of Children and Families’ protective supervision over his son and placed J.C. in the permanent guardianship of his paternal aunt. Although the trial court’s decision is supported by competent, substantial evidence, the final order itself does not contain or reference the detailed findings required by section 39.6221(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2012). See, e.g., R.T., Sr. v. Dep’t. of Children and Families, 27 So.3d 195 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). The order also fails to comply with section 39.6221(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2012), which requires the trial court to “[s]pecify the frequency and nature of visitation or contact between the child and his or her parents.” See, e.g., In re J.L.R., Jr., 64 So.3d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).1 Accordingly, we reverse and re*700mand for entry of an amended order that meets the requirements of section 39.6221(2)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GRIFFIN, PALMER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of A.C. (1) v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 136 So. 3d 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…at the children are dependent” is insufficient to comply with this requirement. Id. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the entry of an amended order that meets the requirements of section 39.6221(2)(a). See C.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Families., 108 So. 3d 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Reversed and remanded. ALTENBERND and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur. . We deny the Father’s motion to take judicial notice of the record in J.S. In fact, we returned the record in J.S. to the trial court several years ago. Of co…
Authorities Cited
- R.T., SR. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 27 So. 3d 195 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Davel M. Ross v. State, 64 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)