J.R., THE MOTHER, 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.
A mother appeals a post-disposition order suspending her visitation rights with her dependent child. The Fourth District reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to include specific findings of fact required by Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, though the court found competent, substantial evidence supported the suspension decision on the merits.
The trial court erred by failing to include specific findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure Rule 8.260(a). However, the court's ultimate conclusion to suspend visitation was supported by competent, substantial evidence and was in the best interests of the child.
[1] An order modifying visitation rights must contain specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.
[2] A court may suspend a parent's visitation rights when there is competent, substantial evidence that the suspension is in the best interests of the child.
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“Rule 8.260(a) of the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure requires all orders of the court to "contain specific findings of fact and conclusions of law."”
Establishes the procedural requirement the trial court violated by failing to articulate findings supporting the visitation suspension order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court adjudicated the child dependent after the mother consented to a dependency petition. The court ordered therapeutically supervised visi…
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 Findings Of Fact Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
MAY, J.
The mother appeals a post-disposition order that modified her visitation rights to her child. She raises two issues: (1) the court erred in failing to include specific findings of fact to support the modification; and (2) the court erred in modifying her visitation rights. We reverse.
The court adjudicated the child dependent after the mother consented to the second amended petition for dependency filed by the Department of Children and Families [DCF]. The court ordered visitation for the mother to be “therapeutically supervised by Kids in Distress or other approved therapeutic Supervision Provider” and approved a reunification case plan. The court subsequently entered a disposition order, including out-of-home placement in foster care with weekly, therapeutically supervised visitation. The mother was ordered to complete various tasks, including domestic violence victim and parenting classes.
Less than two weeks later, DCF filed an emergency motion to prohibit contact with the mother. The motion described “several incidents involving the mother and various staff at the Childnet offices and at the Kids in Distress campus before, during, and after, the mother’s supervised, therapeutic visits with the child.” After taking testimony from a child advocate and licensed psychologist, the court ordered that the mother’s “visitations with the child shall be suspended, until the Court can be assured that the mother’s mental health is stabilized and any further visitation will not occur unless and until it is therapeutically indicated.” The court did not, however, make specific findings of fact supporting its decision.
The DCF concedes the order fails to contain specific findings of fact and requests that the case be remanded to the trial court for this purpose. While the cases cited by the mother do not involve post-disposition visitation orders, Rule 8.260(a) of the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure requires all orders of the court to “contain specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.” For this reason, we must reverse and remand the case to the trial court. However, having reviewed the record presented, there is competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s ultimate conclusion to suspend the mother’s visitation in the best interests of the child. K.F. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 963 So. 2d 947, 948-49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded.
SHAHOOD, C.J. and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.A. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 988 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…l court that reunification or adoption is not in the best interests of the [*1249] child, and that finding must be supported by competent substantial evidence in the record.1 § 39.6221(1), Fla. Stat. (2007); see J.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 976 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (reviewing the trial court’s findings concerning the best interests of the child for competent substantial evidence). Under the permanent guardianship statute, a parent’s failure to comply with a case plan is not a stated ground…
-
J.P. v. V.P., 196 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…58, 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.…
Authorities Cited
- Grimsley v. State, 963 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Bennett v. State, 963 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)