Reunification Case Plans Mean Something

Once you give a parent a case plan with a goal of reunification, you have to see it through unless you have a hearing to change it. It’s hard to believe it’s that simple. But it is.

We recognize that section 39.521(3)(b)(1), Florida Statutes (2011), gives a court the option to place a dependent child with a nonoffending parent and to terminate jurisdiction over the child. This is clearly permissible when an offending parent has not complied with a case plan. See T.W. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 946 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). But when the parent is diligently working on a reunification case plan, proceeding in that fashion effectively produces a de facto amendment of the reunification goal. See K.E. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 958 So.2d 968, 971–72 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (citing R.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 948 So.2d 898, 899–900 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)). Again, due process requires that a court determine the propriety of amending a case plan only after an evidentiary hearing. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.420(a)(3) (providing that the court may amend the goal of a case plan “if there is a preponderance of evidence demonstrating the need for the amendment”).

The alternative option, in section 39.521(3)(b)(2), allows the court to order that reunification services be provided to the noncustodial parent and to change custody if need be, based on the best interest of the child. In this case, the court received no evidence suggesting that giving A.S. a reasonable opportunity to complete her case plan tasks would be detrimental to the child, and there was no evidentiary basis for altering the plan’s reunification goal. Under these circumstances, the court should have proceeded under subsection (3)(b)(2).

In re E.G.-S., — So.3d —- (Fla. 2nd DCA 2013).

2 Replies to “Reunification Case Plans Mean Something”

  1. Robert, on the flip-side, this will pose an interesting situation for a non-offending parent’s counsel of a parent who wants custody when the offending parent wants to enter a plea. Counsel will have to object to the case plan and disposition, and quite possibly not agree to the plea, in order to protect the non-offending parent’s fundamental liberty interest from being adversely affected by a court’s reliance on this case and giving a case plan to the offending parent. A late arriving parent would be better served by filing a motion for relief from the disposition and case plan orders pursuant to Rule 8.270 rather than amending the case plan. Just my initial thoughts.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s