J.P., THE FATHER, APPELLANT,
v.
V.P., THE MOTHER, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2016-08-10
No. 4D16-1590
GROSS, MAY and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
196 So. 3d 1283 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2016)

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.


Holding

The court held that the trial court's order regarding visitation was legally insufficient due to a lack of specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.


Facts & Procedural History

Following termination of protective supervision, the trial court entered a visitation order for children with their mother. The father appealed this o…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

The lower court terminated protective supervision of the minor children following achievement of the permanency goal of reunification with the father, but retained jurisdiction to decide an issue regarding the children’s visitation with the mother. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a written order deciding the visitation issue. The father appealed.

Subsequently, the father moved to remand for the lower court to enter a legally sufficient order, stating the trial court’s written order implementing a visitation schedule does not “contain specific findings of fact and conclusions of law” as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.260(a). The mother filed a notice stating she was unopposed to remanding this case. We treat the mother’s notice as a confession of error. See S.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 4D16-858, 2016 WL 3919070 (Fla. 4th DCA July 20, 2016).

We accept the mother’s confession of error and reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to enter an order that complies with rule 8.260(a). See J.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 976 So.2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (remanding a post-disposition order that failed to comply with rule 8.260(a) for the trial court to make specific findings of fact).

Reversed and remanded.

GROSS, MAY and LEVINE, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw