IN THE INTEREST OF R.C., A CHILD. D.C.; APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, APPELLEES
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.
D.C. appeals a trial court order placing his son in permanent guardianship. The Second District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded because the trial court's order lacked sufficient factual findings required by the permanent guardianship statute.
The trial court's order was reversed and remanded because it contained insufficient factual findings to support permanent guardianship. A general reference to prior dependency findings does not satisfy the statute; the court must either specifically reference findings from the dependency order or make separate findings of fact. The visitation provision did not necessarily violate statutory requirements but may be revisited on remand.
[1] A trial court must consider and apply the factors set forth in the permanent guardianship statute when determining whether to place a child in a permanent guardianship.
[2] A general reference to findings of fact made in a dependency order is insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements for establishing a permanent guardianship.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Section 39.6221(2)(a) allows the trial court to refer to specific findings of fact made in the dependency order or to make separate findings of fact. The order does neither. A general reference to the dependency findings does not satisfy the statute.”
Establishes that trial courts must make specific factual findings when ordering permanent guardianship, not merely reference prior dependency orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceD.C.'s son, R.C., was found to be a dependent child. The trial court placed R.C. in permanent guardianship and terminated DCF's protective supervision…
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.
D.C. appeals the trial court’s order placing his son, R.C., in a permanent guardianship. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.146. Because the trial court’s order contained insufficient factual findings to permit a permanent guardianship, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In determining whether a trial court erred in placing a child in a permanent guardianship and terminating protective supervision by the Department of Children & Family Services (DCF), we look at whether the trial court considered and applied the factors set forth in the permanent guardianship statute. I.Z. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 967 So.2d 425, 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Section 39.6221, Florida Statutes (2012), lists the factors that the trial court must consider in determining that reunification or adoption is not in the best interest of the child and that a permanent guardianship is appropriate.
The order before us states generally that “[t]he parents are not fit to care for the child and reunification is not possible because of the circumstances from which the court previously based its finding that the child is dependent in the order of adjudication.” The trial court also referenced that D.C. had not completed his case plan. This is inadequate. Section 39.6221(2)(a) allows the trial court to refer to specific findings of fact made in the dependency order or to make separate findings of fact. The order does neither. A general reference to the dependency findings does not satisfy the statute. See J.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 18 So.3d 712, 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (citing C.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 988 So.2d 1247, 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)); see also M.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 86 So.3d 1149, 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); R.T. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 27 So.3d 195, 196 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Further, the reference to D.C.’s failure to complete a case plan would not be sufficient, by itself, to support a permanent guardianship placement. See J.S., 18 *926So.3d at 714. On remand, the trial court should reconsider whether DCF presented sufficient evidence to support the permanent guardianship. Id.
D.C. also argues that the trial court’s visitation provision is nonspecific and runs afoul of statutory requirements. We have held that a nonspecific visitation requirement does not comply with section 39.6221(2)(c). See S.W-R. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Sens., 64 So.3d 1283, 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (holding that visitation cannot be left to the discretion of either of the parties). Here, the trial court ordered visitation as to D.C. be supervised at all times by the child’s therapist, the permanent guardian, or an adult approved by DCF. The visitation “shall occur on a schedule agreed by the parties and at a place agreed to by the parties.... Once recommended by the therapist, the visitation shall be supervised visitation at a minimum of once a month for a minimum of one hour.” This portion of the order does not necessarily violate section 39.6221(2)(c). However, because we are reversing the order placing the child in permanent guardianship, D.C. may seek to revisit this matter in the trial court.
Reversed and remanded.
KELLY and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 189 So. 3d 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…g to specific findings of fact made in its order adjudicating the child dependent or by making separate findings of fact.” § 39.6221(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014). “A general reference to the dependency findings does not satisfy the statute.” In re R.C., 118 So. 3d 924, 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (citing J.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 18 So. 3d 712, 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)). Here, the order states “[t]he parents are not fit to care for the children and reunification is not possible because the circumstance…1 / 2
-
In the Interest of C.A. and S.L. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 210 So. 3d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…her proceedings because the permanent guardians did not testify and the trial court did not “appear to have had a factual basis” to find that reunification or adoption are not in the child’s best interest); D.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 118 So. 3d 924, 925-26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (reversing an order that contained insufficient factual findings to permit a permanent guardianship, explaining the father’s failure to complete a case plan “would not be sufficient, by itself, to support a permanent guard…
-
R. T. v. Dept. of Child. & Families (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Cole v. State, 988 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- C.A. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 988 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Davel M. Ross v. State, 64 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- In the Interest of J.S. and A.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Statewide Guardian Ad Litem Off., 18 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- M.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 86 So. 3d 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Desilets v. Lorberg, 967 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- I.Z. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 967 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- In the Interest of J.L.R., JR. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 64 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)