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

Powell v. Department of Children & Families764 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) · 1D99-2667

Court
1st DCA
Decided
2000-04-12
Case
Dependency
Appellant
Relative / caregiver

Affirmed Denial of unsupervised in-home visitation for grandparents affirmed because the father's free access to their home was a compelling reason under section 39.509.

Issue
Visitation & contact
Facts
Relative or grandparent caregiver, Domestic violence
Law cited
§ 39.509(1)

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

On CourtListener
PER CURIAM.

Ray Powell and Mary Powell appeal an order denying them unsupervised visitation of their dependent grandchildren, E.P. and C.P., and their dependent step-grandchild, C.N. Under section 39.509, Florida Statutes (1999), grandparents of dependent children may be granted “reasonable visitation,” unless such visitation is not in the “best interest of the child,” and the visitation may take place in the home of the grandparents “unless there is a compelling reason for denying such visitation.” § 39.509(1), Fla. Stat. (1999). The trial court denied unsupervised visitation to appellants based upon its findings that John Powell, the natural father of E.P. and C.P., who in April 1999 had been arrested for kidnaping and domestic battery, had free access to appellants’ home and that appellants “cannot provide a means to ensure the safety of the children given John Powell’s free access to the home.” Appellants have not demonstrated that the trial court erred in finding a compelling reason not to allow visitation in the home of appellants. *633See § 39.509(1). Accordingly, the order on appellants’ amended motion for visitation is AFFIRMED.

BARFIELD, C.J., VAN NORTWICK AND PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.

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