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

R.C. v. Department of Children & Family Services6 So. 3d 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) · 2D08-2457

Court
2nd DCA
Decided
2009-05-06
Case
Dependency
Appellant
Father

Reversed & remanded Permanent guardianship order reversed on DCF's concession for lacking required written findings and for insufficient evidence supporting the placement.

Issues
Permanency goals other than reunification, Written findings & sufficiency of the order
Law cited
§ 39.6221(2)

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

On CourtListener
KHOUZAM, Judge.

R.C. appeals an order placing his two daughters, T.C. and R.B., in a permanent guardianship1 and terminating the supervision of the Department of Children and Family Services. The Department correctly concedes error because the order failed to contain written findings as required by section 39.6221(2), Florida Statutes (2007).

The Department also concedes that, even if the trial court’s order complied ■with section 39.6221(2), the evidence was insufficient to support the placement of the children in a permanent guardianship. We agree. See C.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 988 So.2d 1247, 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding that trial court’s finding must be supported by competent substantial evidence). Accordingly, we reverse the order placing the children in a permanent guardianship and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

ALTENBERND and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

. Although R.C. characterizes the order appealed as terminating his parental rights, his parental rights were not terminated.

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