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

T.J. v. Department of Children & Families1D16-0378

Court
1st DCA
Decided
2016-06-29
Court's PDF On CourtListener
                                     IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                                     FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA T. J., FATHER OF A.J., MINOR         NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO CHILD,                               FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
                                     DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
      Appellant, v.                                   CASE NO. 1D16-0378 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,
      Appellee.

_____________________________/ Opinion filed June 22, 2016. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Baker County. Phillip Pena, Judge. Henri C. Cawthon, Law Office of Henri C. Cawthon, P.A., Gainesville, for Appellant. Ward L. Metzger, Jacksonville, for Appellee.


PER CURIAM.
      Appellant, T.J., appeals an order placing his minor child into a permanent guardianship. As Appellant argues, and as the Department of Children and Families and Guardian ad Litem concede, reversal is warranted given the Department’s failure to produce evidence or testimony during the permanency hearing. See C.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 
41 So. 3d 368, 368-69
 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (noting that a trial court’s order of permanent guardianship must be supported by competent, substantial evidence); C.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 
27 So. 3d 241, 242-43
(Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“It is well-settled that the Department has the burden of proving that reunification with the parent would endanger the child.”).
      REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.


LEWIS, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR. 

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