Guardianship orders are hard, Second DCA’s already reversed two of them this year


” But the statute clearly requires the trial court to first make a reasoned decision that reunification or adoption are not in the best interest of the child. See § 39.6221(1). Despite the language of the order, the court did not make that determination in this case and does not appear to have had a factual basis to have made such a determination. Subsection 39.6221(2) and rule 8.425(d) contain detailed requirements for the written order establishing a permanent guardianship. It is obvious that the legislature intends case specific explanations in such orders. Rule 8.425(d)(7) emphasizes the specific findings required when the permanent guardians are not relatives. A form order to assist judges in granting a permanent guardianship may be appropriate but not at the omission of the information that the statute requires the trial court to specify.”

In re J.B., 2014 WL 258743 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)

ImageAlthough we conclude that the trial court’s decision to place the children in a permanent guardianship is supported by competent, substantial evidence, the order on appeal fails to contain or to reference the detailed findings required by section 39.6221(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2012).”

In Interest of A.C.(1), 2D13-4186, 2014 WL 594381 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)


PRO TIP: If anyone is objecting, treat a permanency hearing or TOS hearing on permanent guardianship with the professional attention you would a TPR trial. Because to that parent, it is essentially a TPR trial.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *