Category: Case Law Updates
-
Permanent Guardianship Reversals #3 and #4
#3: Oh look, someone in C.L. v. DCF, — So.3d —- (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) didn’t… set forth written findings, explain why a guardianship was being chosen over an adoption, order the guardian not to return the child to the parent, and specify the nature and frequency of visits with the parents. #4 In S.G. v.…
-
Fathers get to see adoption files too
A father, who was challenging his consent to adoption, was denied access to the pleadings that were being used against him because adoption files are “confidential.” The Fourth DCA disagrees: We fail to understand how he would not be entitled to see the pleadings and papers filed in the proceeding to take away his rights.…
-
Contested reunification orders need findings too
In this case, the trial court made a finding only as to the parents’ compliance with the case plan. The court failed to address the other statutory factors [in 39.621(10)]. Moreover, there was no competent, substantial evidence to support a finding as to any of the factors because the Department was not on notice that…
-
Third DCA issues rule to show cause against APD and appellate counsel
The facts are a classic professional responsibility or CivPro fact pattern. APD and M.B. reached a settlement. APD’s trial counsel courteously agreed to have the hearing taken off calendar, but through some snafu the hearing officer entered a default against M.B. The APD trial counsel acknowledged that this was an error and tried to fix…
-
Georgia: Deprived children and youth have no standing independent of GAL
If there is a holding in this case, it’s this: The protector of a child’s best interests is his guardian ad litem. It has previously been held that, “[w]hen a court appoints a guardian ad litem to represent a minor, the minor is in effect made a party to the action and has standing through the guardian ad…
-
Permanent Guardianship Reversal #2
Permanent guardianships are hard. You have to give people notice, make all these findings, and order visitation and stuff. So annoying, right? This is the second permanent guardianship reversal out of the Fifth DCA this year. I guess they’re winning. Although the trial court’s decision is supported by competent, substantial evidence, the final order itself…
-
Section 39.806(1)(i) now has an expiration date
Three years. As noted above, Appellants’ parental rights were terminated for their previous child, D.B., on June 12, 2009. Almost three years later, on March 31, 2012, V.B. was removed from Appellants’ custody. This time frame is relevant under the holding of F.L. We find that, as a matter of law, such a time frame contains very…
-
Who determines probable cause under the Keeping Children Safe Act?
Not the dependency court holding the hearing: [T]he KCSA [does not] authorize a court to revisit a probable cause determination that has been made. It is not the responsibility of a court in a KCSA hearing to re-determine whether there was probable cause; rather, the responsibility of the court is to determine whether a court…
-
Saturday morning case law
2013 is not panning out as a great case law year thus far: We don’t split babies in Florida. In re T.B., — So.3d —-, 2013 WL 561489(Fla. 2nd DCA 2013) (citing § 39.521(4), Fla. Stat. (2012) (“An agency granted legal custody shall have the right to determine where and with whom the child shall live,…
-
APD denies foster child twice, gets denied by First DCA
A.G.Q. ex rel. M.Q. v. Agency for Persons with Disabilities— So.3d —-, 2013 WL 466264Fla.App. 1 Dist.,2013. Though this case is nominally about the relationship between APD and DCF, its holding appears to be limited to the standard of review between recommended orders and final orders in administrative hearings. The facts are interesting, however: an…