K.C., MOTHER OF J.C., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, APPELLEE
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 Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's order permanently awarding custody of a child to the non-offending father while denying reunification with the mother. The court held that a trial court commits reversible error when it permanently awards custody to a non-offending parent when the offending parent has a reunification case plan goal and has substantially complied with the plan, without finding that reunification would be detrimental to the child.
A trial court commits reversible error when it permanently awards custody to a non-offending parent when the offending parent has a case plan goal of reunification and has either substantially complied with the plan, or where the time for compliance has not yet expired—at least without a finding that reunification would be detrimental to the children.
[1] A court commits reversible error by permanently awarding custody to a non-offending parent when the offending parent has a case plan goal of reunification and has substan…
[2] A trial court must make a finding that reunification would endanger the child or not be in the child's best interest before permanently awarding custody to a non-offendin…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“a court commits reversible error when it "permanently award[s] custody to a non-offending parent when the offending parent has a case plan goal of reunification and has either substantially complied with the plan, or where the time for compliance has not yet expired—at least without a finding that reunification would be detrimental to the children."”
Establishes the core legal standard for reversible error in this context
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMother was ordered to comply with a case plan instituted in 2016 with the goal of reunification. Throughout the pendency of the case plan, the trial c…
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 Reunification Goal cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant (“Mother”)’appeals the trial court’s order awarding permanent custody of her child to the non-offending parent (“Father”), denying reunification with her, and relinquishing jurisdiction by erroneously applying section 39.521(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2015), resulting in an order permanently placing the child with Father. The Department of Children and Families concedes error.
*784We have repeatedly held that a court commits reversible error when it “permanently award[s] custody to a non-offending parent when the offending parent has a case plan goal of reunification and has either substantially complied with the plan, or where the time for compliance has not yet expired—at least without a finding that reunification would be detrimental to the children.” M.M. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 29 So.3d 1200, 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citing K.E. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 958 So.2d 968, 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); R.H. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 948 So.2d 898, 900 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); D.G. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 903 So.2d 1042, 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); D.S. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 900 So.2d 628, 631-32 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)); see also B.W. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 114 So.3d 243, 249 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).
Here, the trial court ordered Mother to comply with a case plan instituted in 2016 with the goal of reunification. Throughout the pendency of the case plan, the trial court held review hearings and found that Mother was working diligently toward the completion of the plan. Despite Mother’s progress, the trial court subsequently gave Father permanent custody and closed the case, without making a finding that reunification with Mother would either endanger the child or not be in the child’s best interest pursuant to section 39.522(3), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing. See M.M., 29 So.3d at 1201.
REVERSED and REMANDED with Instructions.
EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
L.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 274 So. 3d 556 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- R.H. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 948 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Jeter v. State, 958 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- D.S. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 900 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- D.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 903 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- McKEEHAN v. State, 903 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Ortiz v. State, 29 So. 3d 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- M.M. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 29 So. 3d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- B.W. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 114 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)