IN THE INTEREST OF M.W., A CHILD. M.B.W., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES 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.
Father's appeal of dependency adjudication was granted in part: the court affirmed the child's adjudication as dependent but reversed acceptance of the case plan to the extent it imposed tasks beyond parenting class, requiring remand for an amended plan limited to addressing facts giving rise to dependency.
A case plan imposed on a parent in a dependency proceeding must be limited to tasks designed to address only the facts and circumstances giving rise to the adjudication of dependency.
[1] A case plan in a dependency proceeding must impose only tasks designed to address the facts and circumstances giving rise to the adjudication of dependency, not additiona…
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 intelligenceThe Father's daughter was adjudicated dependent. The trial court accepted a case plan that required the Father to complete tasks beyond a parenting cl…
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 Case Plan Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
M.B.W., the Father, seeks review of the trial court’s order adjudicating his daughter dependent and accepting the case plan prepared by the Department of Children and Families. The Father does not challenge the adjudication of dependency but asserts that the. trial court erred in accepting the case plan to the extent that it required him to complete tasks beyond a parenting class. The Department concedes error in part. Nothing in the record supports the imposition of the case plan tasks beyond the parenting class. See §§ 39.407(15), .407(16), .6011(2)(a), .6012(1)(a), ,603(1)(f), Fla. Stat. (2014); C.T. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 84 So.3d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); cf. J.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 136 So.3d 1271, 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (granting the petition for writ of certiorari in part where the trial court sua sponte amended the case plan absent the requisite evidentiary showing pursuant to section 39.6013, Florida Statutes). As such, we affirm the adjudication of dependency, but we reverse the acceptance of the Father’s case plan and remand for the Department to prepare an amended case plan. The amended case plan should impose tasks “that are designed to address only the facts and circumstances giving rise to” the adjudication of dependency as it relates to the Father. See C.T., 84 So.3d at 1233.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
NORTHCUTT and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of G.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 84 So. 3d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- In the Interest of S.M. and G.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 136 So. 3d 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Kaser v. State, 136 So. 3d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)