A.G., THE FATHER, PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, RESPONDENTS.
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 father petitioned for certiorari review of a trial court order that denied a reunification goal and changed the case plan from reunification to adoption in a dependency case. The appellate court granted the petition, finding the trial court violated essential requirements of law by lacking evidentiary support for the change and failing to provide due process notice to the father.
The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in two respects: it lacked an evidentiary basis (preponderance of the evidence) to support changing the case plan from reunification to adoption, and it violated the father's due process rights by failing to provide notice that a case plan change would be considered.
[1] A trial court must have a preponderance of the evidence to support a change in a case plan goal.
[2] A party is denied due process when a court considers a change in a case plan goal without providing notice that such a change would be addressed at the hearing.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 order to change a case plan, the trial court is required to find by a preponderance of the evidence that a change in the case plan is required.”
Establishes the evidentiary standard required for changing a case plan goal in dependency cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dependency case involving children, the Department of Children and Families submitted a two-month reunification goal at a February 27, 2018 heari…
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 Material Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
The Father, A.G., petitions for certiorari review of the trial court's February 27, 2018 non-final order that 1) denied the approval of a two-month reunification goal submitted by the Department of Children and Families ("DCF"), and 2) that changed the case plan goal from reunification to adoption.1 The Father claims he was denied due process as he was not noticed that a change in the case plan was to be addressed at the hearing and, also, that the trial court's decision changing the case plan from reunification to adoption is not supported by the required finding of a preponderance of the evidence.
The standard of review for a petition for a writ of certiorari is whether the circuit court departed from the essential *797requirements of law so as to materially injure the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings. Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Garcia, 994 So.2d 390, 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). To merit certiorari review, we must find that (1) the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law; (2) this departure will result in material injury for the remainder of the case; and (3) the departure cannot be corrected on post-judgment appeal. See D.G. v. Dept. of Children and Families, 16 So.3d 972, 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).
The order in question arises out of a February 27, 2018 hearing in which the trial court ordered the case plan to be changed from one of unification to one of adoption. DCF properly concedes that the order at issue constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law for two reasons. First, there was no evidentiary basis to support the change of case plan goal from reunification to adoption. In order to change a case plan, the trial court is required to find by a preponderance of the evidence that a change in the case plan is required. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.260(a). The only evidence presented at the hearing was from the Guardian ad Litem, who did not recommend a change in the plan from reunification to adoption, and the Department's Judicial Review Study Report that recommended the Mother be reunited with the children. Therefore, the trial court's order is not based on the required preponderance of the evidence.
DCF also concedes that the Father was denied his due process rights as he was not put on notice that a change of case plan goal would be considered at the hearing. DCF additionally concedes that the goal change relieves DCF from providing further referrals for services, constituting material injury that cannot be remedied on post-judgment appeal.
We therefore grant the petition for certiorari, quash the order below, and remand for proceedings consistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Baptist Hosp. OF Miami, Inc. v. Garcia, 994 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- D.G. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families & the Guardian Ad Litem Program, 16 So. 3d 972 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)