Dependency Law Finder

Florida's dependency statutes, court rules and DCF operating procedures, with the appellate opinions that apply them

data.robertlathamesq.org · All tools

Before you use this site

This site aggregates legal authorities from a variety of public sources. It is AI and human reviewed. Text processing errors can occur. Always check the information here against the official linked source.

This site is publicly available. Use for general research only. Do not submit confidential or identifiable case information.

I don't agree: show the official sources

E.F. v. Department of Children & Families16 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) · 1D09-0176

Court
1st DCA
Decided
2009-06-16
Case
TPR
Appellant
Both parents

Reversed & remanded Terminations reversed on DCF's concessions: no valid case plan for the father, confused information on APPLA, and the mother did not qualify for single-parent termination.

Issues
Disposition, case plan & reasonable efforts, Permanency goals other than reunification, One-parent termination

Summary, issues, facts, outcome, and appellant were extracted automatically from the opinion. Check the opinion itself before relying on them.

On CourtListener
PER CURIAM.

Separately, E.F., the mother, and D.F., the father, appeal an order of the circuit court terminating their parental rights as to their two children. Upon review of the brief filed on behalf of D.F., appellee has conceded error because of the absence of a valid case plan for the father at the time of the adjudicatory hearing. The Department also concedes that the trial court was provided “confused information” regarding the option of Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement under section 39.6241, Florida Statutes. The Guardian ad Litem joins in the concession of error. The Department suggests that the mother does not qualify for single-parent termination under section 39.811(6), Florida Statutes, and therefore her appeal should also result in a reversal. We agree these concessions are well-taken and accordingly, the cases are remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

HAWKES, C.J., ALLEN and CLARK, JJ., concur.

Opinion text: CourtListener, Free Law Project. Not an official reporter; check the court's version before citing.