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.N. v. Department of Children & Family Services55 So. 3d 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) · 2D10-4126

Court
2nd DCA
Decided
2011-02-25
Case
Dependency
Appellant
Father

Affirmed in part, reversed in part Dependency and permanent guardianship affirmed, but the guardianship order was reversed for failing to set the father's visitation schedule as statute requires.

Issues
Visitation & contact Reversed & remanded, Written findings & sufficiency of the order Reversed & remanded, Permanency goals other than reunification Affirmed, Dependency adjudication: sufficiency of evidence Affirmed
Law cited
§ 39.6221(2)(c)

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

On CourtListener
VILLANO!, Judge.

R.N., the father of A.N., challenges the circuit court’s orders finding A.N. dependent and placing her in a permanent guardianship with her stepfather. Because competent, substantial evidence supported the order finding A.N. dependent, we affirm that order without further discussion.

We also affirm the circuit court’s order placing A.N. in a permanent guardianship with her stepfather. See § 39.6221, Fla. Stat. (2009). However, over R.N.’s objection, the circuit court failed to “[sjpecify the frequency and nature of visitation or contact between” R.N. and his daughter in the guardianship order as required by section 39.6221(2)(c). Instead, the court ordered that R.N. and the permanent guardian develop and agree on a visitation and contact schedule. This resolution was not only unworkable given the animosity between R.N. and the permanent guardian, but also violated the clear mandate of section 39.6221(2)(c). Therefore, we reverse *686the guardianship order on this basis alone and remand for the court to enter an amended order that sets forth a visitation and contact schedule between R.N. and A.N.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CASANUEVA., C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., Concur.

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