S.W-R. v. Department of Children & Family Services · 2D10-5391

VILLANTI, Judge.

S.W-R., the mother, challenges the circuit court’s order placing two of her children, J.L.R., Jr., and N.R., in a permanent guardianship with their maternal grandmother. We affirm all aspects of the order except as to the visitation schedule between S.W-R. and the children. On that single point, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Section 39.6221(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2010), requires the circuit court’s written order to “[sjpecify the frequency and nature of visitation or contact between the child and his or her parents.” This plain language mandates that the court establish a specific visitation schedule rather than leaving visitation to the discretion of either of the parties. See R.N. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 55 So.3d 685, 685-86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). An order that does not comply with the requirements of section 39.6221 must be reversed. See, e.g., J.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 18 So.3d 712, 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); R.T., Sr. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 27 So.3d 195, 196 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

In this case, over S.W-R.’s objection, the circuit court failed to “[sjpecify the frequency and nature of visitation or contact between” S.W-R. and her children. Instead, in a somewhat ambiguous fashion, the written order provides for visitation biweekly for an hour to an hour and a half “or at the discretion of the caregiver.” Thus, the order places complete discretion concerning the frequency and duration of visitation with the maternal grandmother. Aside from the violation of the statutory language, this order creates a significant problem in this case in which S.W-R. has a strained relationship with the maternal grandmother. And the court’s oral suggestion that the parties “compromise” does not provide any guidance to the parties as *1285to the court’s intent concerning the extent of the maternal grandmother’s discretion.

Therefore, we reverse the circuit court’s order appointing a permanent guardian to the extent that it leaves the nature and frequency of any visitation between S.WR. and the children to the maternal grandmother’s unfettered discretion and remand for the trial court to delineate S.W-R.’s visitation rights with her children in accordance with section 39.6221(2)(c).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

NORTHCUTT and WALLACE, JJ„ Concur.

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

Cited by 5 opinions

In this collection (5)

R.T. v. Department of Children & Families 2D22-0393 · 2nd DCA 2022Reversed & remanded Permanent guardianship supported by the evidence, but the order must cite specific dependency findings and set a minimum visitation frequency under section 39.6221.
K.B. v. Department of Children & Families 2D15-4367 · 2nd DCA 2016Reversed & remanded Permanent guardianship order reversed on DCF's concession: no notice of the request and no evidentiary hearing; visitation provisions otherwise complied with the statute.
In the Interest of R.C. v. Department of Children & Family Services 2D13-564 · 2nd DCA 2013Reversed & remanded Permanent guardianship reversed because the order only generally referenced dependency findings and case plan noncompliance, lacking the specific findings required by statute.
C.C. v. Department of Children & Families 5D12-3417 · 5th DCA 2013Reversed & remanded Permanent guardianship order reversed because it lacked the required detailed findings and did not specify the frequency and nature of the father's visitation.
M.G. v. Department of Children & Family Services 3D12-48 · 3rd DCA 2012Reversed & remanded Permanent guardianship order reversed because it gave no reasons the mother was unfit and left visitation frequency to the guardians' discretion.

From CourtListener's citation data, every court it covers, which can miss citations (in short or unpublished orders especially).

Cites 3 opinions in this collection

Citations to cases outside the collection are linked in the opinion text itself.

R.N. v. Department of Children & Family Services 2D10-4126 · 2nd DCA 2011Dependency and permanent guardianship affirmed, but the guardianship order was reversed for failing to set the father's visitation schedule as statute requires.
R.T. v. Department of Children & Families 5D09-2130 · 5th DCA 2010Permanent guardianship with the child's half-brother reversed because the order lacked specific findings on why reunification with the father was not possible.
J.S. v. Department of Children & Family Services 2D09-404-2 · 2nd DCA 2009Permanent guardianship reversed because the order lacked required findings and the mother was making a determined effort to rehabilitate while the children thrived with grandparents.

Dependency Law Finder

Before you use this site

S.W-R. v. Department of Children & Family Services64 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) · 2D10-5391

Cited by 5 opinions

In this collection (5)

Cites 3 opinions in this collection

S.W-R. v. Department of Children & Family Services64 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) · 2D10-5391 Copy citation

Cited by 5 opinions

In this collection (5)

Cites 3 opinions in this collection

S.W-R. v. Department of Children & Family Services64 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) · 2D10-5391