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

J.C. v. Department of Children & Family Services136 So. 3d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) · 2D13-2079

Court
2nd DCA
Decided
2013-09-18
Case
Dependency
Appellant
Mother

Reversed & remanded Permanent guardianship reversed on DCF's concession because the case plan improperly required the mother to admit harming the child and the order lacked supporting evidence.

Issues
Permanency goals other than reunification, Disposition, case plan & reasonable efforts
Law cited
§ 39.6011(1)

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

On CourtListener
SLEET, Judge.

J.C., the mother of G.C., appeals the trial court’s order on permanency review and notice of next hearing, which denied the Guardian ad Litem’s motion for reunification, placed G.C. in a permanent guardianship, and terminated supervision by the Department of Children and Family Services.1 The Department correctly concedes error because the case plan improperly requires the mother to admit to having caused harm to the minor child before reunification can take place in contravention to section 39.6011(1), Florida Statutes (2012).

We also agree with the Department s concession of error that the trial court’s order was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. See C.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 988 So.2d 1247, 1248-49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“[Placement of a child in a permanent guardianship requires a finding by the trial court that reunification ... is not in the best interests of the child, and that finding must be supported by competent substantial evidence.”) Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

KHOUZAM and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

. The Guardian ad Litem Program filed an initial brief adopting J.C.’s arguments.

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