IN THE INTEREST OF A.C. (1), A.C. (2), AND T.C., CHILDREN. A.C., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a permanent guardianship order because the trial court failed to include detailed statutory findings explaining why reunification was not possible, as required by section 39.6221(2)(a).
A trial court must include detailed findings explaining why reunification is not possible in its written order placing children in permanent guardianship, not merely reference prior dependency findings.
[1] A trial court's order placing children in permanent guardianship must contain detailed findings explaining why reunification is not possible, either by referring to speci…
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 its written order, the trial court was required to explain why reunification was not possible by either 'referring to specific findings of fact made in its order adjudicating the child[ren] dependent or by making separate findings of fact[.]'”
Court citing J.S. v. Department of Children & Family Services regarding statutory requirement for detailed findings in permanent guardianship orders.
Father appealed an order placing three minor children into permanent guardianship. The trial court's order did not contain the detailed findings requi…
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 Permanent Guardianship cases and more on FLexlaw
A.C., the Father, appeals an order placing three of his minor children into a permanent guardianship. Although we conclude that the trial court’s decision to place the children in a permanent guardianship is supported by competent, substantial evidence, the order on appeal fads to contain or to reference the detailed findings required by section 39.6221(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2012). See J.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 18 So.3d 712, 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“[I]n its written order, the trial court was required to explain why reunification was not possible by either ‘referring to specific findings of fact made in its order adjudicating the ehild[ren] dependent or by making separate findings of fact[.])’ ” (quoting § 39.6221(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008)).1 As we stated in J.S., the trial court’s reference to “the circumstances from which the court previously based its findings that 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R. T. v. Dept. of Child. & Families (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Rutig v. State, 18 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
- 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)
- C.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 108 So. 3d 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)