DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, PETITIONER,
v.
W.H., MOTHER OF C.H., MINOR CHILD, RESPONDENT
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 Department of Children and Families sought certiorari review of a trial court order reunifying a child with her parents in a dependency case. The First District Court of Appeal quashed the order, finding that the trial court violated statutory requirements and due process by failing to make required factual findings on all statutory factors and by failing to provide notice and an evidentiary hearing on the reunification issue.
The order was quashed because the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by: (1) failing to make written factual findings on all six statutory factors required by section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes; (2) failing to provide the Department with notice that reunification was a possible outcome; and (3) failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on reunification, thereby violating the Department's due process rights.
[1] Certiorari review of a non-final order is limited to errors that constitute a departure from the essential requirements of the law, causing irreparable injury, for which…
[2] Before ordering reunification, a trial court must consider the parents' compliance with the case plan and whether reunification would be detrimental to the child.
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“Before ordering reunification, a trial court must consider the parents' compliance with the case plan and whether reunification would be detrimental to the child.”
Establishes the mandatory legal requirements a trial court must satisfy before ordering reunification
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA child, C.H., was in a dependency proceeding. The trial court issued an order reunifying the child with her parents. The Department had not been noti…
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 Certiorari Review Of Non-Final Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
The Department of Children and Families (the Department) seeks certiorari review of a non-final, post-dependency order which ordered reunification of the child, C.H., with her parents. “Certiorari review of a nonfinal order is limited to errors that constitute a departure from the essential requirements of the law, causing irreparable injury, for which there is no adequate remedy on direct appeal.” In re A.W.P, Jr., 10 So.3d 134, 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Because the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law, we quash the order on review.
Before ordering reunification, a trial court must consider the parents’ compliance with the case plan and whether reunification would be detrimental to the child. C.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 974 So.2d 495, 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The court is also required to make written factual findings as to the six statutory factors contained in section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes. Id. In this case, the trial court made a finding only as to the parents’ compliance with the case plan. The court failed to address the other statutory factors. Moreover, there was no competent, substantial evidence to support a finding as to any of the factors because the Department was not on notice that reunification was a possible result of the hearing and no evidence regarding this issue was presented to the trial court. The lack of notice and the lack of an evidentiary hearing on reunification violated the Department’s right to due process. State, Dep’t of Children & Families v. B.D., 102 So.3d 707, 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (quashing an order reopening a dependency proceeding where the trial court failed to make specific, required findings of fact and where the court failed to allow the presentation of evidence); Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families v. R. A., 980 So.2d 578, 579-80 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (quashing an order of reunification where the Department was not given due process notice and there was no competent, substantial evidence to support the court’s decision to reunify the children with the mother); Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. I.C., 742 So.2d 401, 405-06 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (noting that an injunction was a violation of due process where the court gave no notice to the Department that it would enter the injunction and it took no evidence regarding that issue). For these reasons, the trial court’s order departed from the essential requirements of the law and caused irreparable harm that could not be remedied on direct appeal.
We, therefore, grant the petition, quash the order on review, and remand for an appropriate determination of the issues involved after due notice and a full hearing.
Certiorari granted.
CLARK, WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chew v. Earnest Roberts, 122 So. 3d 493 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…oberts’ motion to consolidate despite the lack of notice to Petitioners. Id. at 136 (“Because the father was denied due process, we grant certiorari relief and quash the Order Approving Educational Plans.”); see Dep’t of Children & Families v. W.H., 109 So. 3d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“The lack of notice and the lack of an evidentiary hearing on reunification violated the Department’s right to due process”). In the instant case, the trial court’s granting of the Roberts’ motion to consolidate had poten…
-
A.A. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 147 So. 3d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…and emotional health of the child is not endangered by the modification.” We reject Respondent’s contention that, because the statute does not expressly require an evi-dentiary hearing, none was required. See Dep’t of Children and Families v. W.H., 109 So. 3d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Dep’t of Children and Families v. B.D., 102 So. 3d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). See also, Dep’t of Children and Families v. R.A., 980 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Petitioner further contends, and we agree, that the trial court’s…
-
Dep't OF Child. & Families v. T.W., 124 So. 3d 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…o present evidence deprived Petitioner of its due process rights. The result is an order that departs from the essential requirements of the law and causes irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on appeal. See Dep’t of Children & Families v. W.H., 109 So. 3d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (granting petition for certiorari and quashing order of reunification, concluding that Department’s due process rights were violated when the order was entered without proper notice and an evidentiary hearing). We therefore grant…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. I.C., 742 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- C.D. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 974 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- In the Interest of A.W.P., JR. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 10 So. 3d 134 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- State v. In the Interest of B.D., 102 So. 3d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families & the Guardian ad Litem Program v. R.A., 980 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)