A.S., THE MOTHER, PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, RESPONDENT
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.
A mother challenged a trial court order requiring her to stay away from her mother, who is the permanent guardian of her minor children. The court denied her petition for writ of certiorari, holding that a trial court may act sua sponte in the best interest of minor children in a permanent guardianship without following the procedural requirements that apply when a parent initiates a motion to reopen.
The court held that the trial court properly acted sua sponte in the best interest of the minor children and did not depart from the essential requirements of law. The procedural requirements of Florida Statute section 39.621(10) apply only when a parent files a motion to reopen a permanent guardianship; they do not preclude a trial court from acting sua sponte when appropriate.
[1] A petition for writ of certiorari will be denied when the petitioner fails to demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of law that cannot be remedied on di…
[2] A trial court may reopen a permanent guardianship sua sponte in the best interest of the minor children, even without a motion from a parent.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“No language in the statutory provision or the cited case precludes a trial court from acting sua sponte in the best interest of the minor children, when appropriate.”
Establishes that the trial court has authority to act sua sponte in the best interest of children in permanent guardianship proceedings without the procedural requirements that apply to parent-initiated motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA.S. is the mother of minor children whose permanent guardian is V.S., the maternal grandmother. V.S. filed a petition for an injunction against domes…
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 Right To Counsel In Dependency Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
A.S., the mother of the minor children, petitions this Court to enter a writ of certiorari quashing the trial court’s order requiring that A.S. stay away from her mother, V.S., the grandmother of the minor children, who is the permanent guardian of A.S.’s minor children. A.S. has failed to demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of law that cannot be remedied on direct appeal, thus we deny the petition for writ of certiorari.
On August 2, 2017, the trial court heard evidence concerning the petition for injunction against domestic violence filed by V.S., seeking an order directing A.S. to stay away from V.S. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court entered the Stay Away Order, not in the pending domestic violence case that was the subject of the hearing, but in the closed permanent guardianship that pertains to A.S., her children, and V.S., as permanent guardian.
A.S. complains that ,the permanent guardianship was reopened without notice, and cites to the provisions of Florida Statute section 39.621(10)1 and Department of Children & Families v. B.D., 102 So.3d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), for the proposition that the trial court may not reopen the permanent guardianship without giving proper notice to the mother and ensuring that she is properly represented by counsel or, at minimum, ensuring that she is informed of her right to counsel in the dependency proceeding. However, section 39.621(10) and B.D. are intended to prescribe the procedure that the trial court must follow when a parent files a motion to reopen a permanent guardianship for the purpose of securing additional time with the minor children or a change in custody. No language in the statutory provision or the cited case precludes a trial court from acting sua sponte in the best interest of the minor children, when appropriate.
Consequently, because A.S. has failed to demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of law that cannot be remedied on direct appeal, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari.
Petition denied.