DIVISION OF FAMILY SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
IN RE S. R. ET AL., 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.
The court reversed the juvenile court's order precluding future petitions for permanent commitment but affirmed the order directing placement of five children in a specific licensed foster home in Northeast Florida.
A juvenile court may direct placement of children in a specific foster home but cannot preclude the Division from filing future petitions for permanent commitment because such orders may be modified upon substantial change of circumstances.
[1] Orders pertaining to the welfare of children may be modified or set aside upon a substantial change of circumstances under Florida Statutes Section 39.11(4).
[2] A juvenile court has authority under Florida Statutes Chapter 39 to impose reasonable conditions and restrictions in custodial orders, including directing placement in a…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 Division of Family Services appealed a juvenile court judgment that precluded it from filing future petitions for permanent commitment of five chi…
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 Petition For Permanent Commitment cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
The Division appeals from a final judgment rendered by the Juvenile Court which precludes the Division from filing a future petition for the permanent commitment of five children to the Division for the purpose of adoption, and which directs the Division to place the children in the same licensed foster home located in Northeast Florida. The issue here is whether the Court had authority to preclude the filing of a future petition and to restrict the placement of the children.
The Division is not precluded from filing a future petition, because Section 39.11(4), Florida Statutes, provides that an order such as the one before us may be modified or set aside. It is well established that orders pertaining to the welfare of children may be modified on the basis of a substantial change of circumstances. We reverse.
The Court had authority to direct the Division to place the five children in the same foster home located in Northeast Florida. Keeping the five children together is the intent and goal of Chapter 39, Florida Statutes. The Court has authority under Chapter 39 to impose reasonable conditions and restrictions in custodial orders entered after an adjudicatory hearing. The conditions and restrictions imposed by the order before us are reasonable and did not infringe upon the authority of the Division. The Division may select the foster home as long as it is within the area set by the Court. F. B. v. State, 319 So. 2d 77 (Fla.App. 1st, 1975). We affirm.
We reverse in part and affirm in part.
SMITH, J., concurs.
McCORD, Acting C. J., concurs specially-
McCORD, Acting Chief Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur in the foregoing opinion. The two restrictions imposed by the trial court’s order appear to be reasonable though I can visualize that appellant may have some difficulty in placing five children in the same foster home in the area prescribed by the order. If it should develop that it cannot find a suitable foster home, such could form the basis for a modification of the trial judge’s order.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
31 Foster Child. v. Jeb Bush, 329 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2003)…cific placement for a child, State v. Brooke, 573 So. 2d 363, 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the court can order that siblings be placed together in foster care, one of the very things that some of these plaintiffs seek. See Div. of Family Servs. v. S.R., 328 So. 2d 270, 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); F.B. v. State, 319 So. 2d 77, 79 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). The court can order that a child be placed in a therapeutic setting, In the Interest of L.W., 615 So. 2d 834, 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), and that a child be treated by a l…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of F. B. v. State, 319 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)