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

Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. M.W.424 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) · 1DAN-108

Court
1st DCA
Decided
1982-12-08
Law cited
§ 39.40 (now § 39.013) · § 39.41(6)(a) · § 409.401
On CourtListener
424 So.2d 56 (1982)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Appellant,
v.
In the Interest of M.W., Appellee.

No. AN-108.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 8, 1982.

*57 Jon W. Searcy, Dist. I Legal Counsel, Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative Services, Pensacola, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

WIGGINTON, Judge.

In this appeal, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services raises two issues: (1) whether the Juvenile Court violated the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, Article III(d), Section 409.401, Florida Statutes (1981), when it granted physical custody of M.W. to her parents in Texas, without Texas' consent; and (2) whether the Juvenile Court abused its discretion by returning legal custody of M.W. to her parents in Texas. Although we affirm the Juvenile Court, we do so on the basis of the second issue, which determination necessarily moots the first issue.

When the court granted legal custody to the parents, we cannot in good faith say it abused its discretion, as there was competent record evidence that M.W.'s parents were rehabilitated to the point that the child no longer required supervision and protection under Section 39.40, et seq., Florida Statutes (1981). However, by granting legal custody, the court in effect entered an order dissolving M.W.'s dependency status, as is its prerogative by virtue of Section 39.41(6)(a). It follows, therefore, that M.W.'s case was removed from the proscriptions of the Interstate Compact as the child was no longer one "requiring placement" for its protection. See Article I(a) and (b). Thus, whether the court erred in placing M.W. in the physical custody of her parents without Texas's consent, contra to Article III(d), is no longer a viable issue. The final order of the Juvenile Court granting the parents of M.W. legal custody is hereby AFFIRMED.

SHAW and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

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