Dependency Law Finder

       Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida
                           Opinion filed March 4, 2020.
         Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
                               ________________
                                No. 3D20-87
                         Lower Tribunal No. 18-15287
                            ________________

                           F.C.A., the father, etc.,
                                    Petitioner,
                                        vs.
    State of Florida, Department of Children and Families, et al.,
                                  Respondents.

     On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jason E. Dimitris, Judge.
      Betsy Warwick; Manuel F. Garcia, for petitioner.
     Karla Perkins, for respondent Department of Children & Families; Thomasina F. Moore (Tallahassee) and Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb (Tallahassee), for respondent Guardian ad Litem Program.

Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and GORDO, JJ.
      PER CURIAM.
      F.C.A., the father of two-year-old L.C.A., petitions for a writ of certiorari quashing an order on judicial and permanency review and an order approving a modified case plan, each entered December 12, 2019. 1 L.C.A. was adjudicated dependent in July 2018.
      We deny the petition based on: (a) the record before us; (b) sections 39.522(2) (reunification must not be detrimental to the child’s safety, well-being, and physical, mental and emotional health), and 39.6011(2)(d) (twelve-month timeframe for compliance with the case plan), Florida Statutes (2019); and (c) M.I. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 

 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010):

      The facts of this case clearly exemplify the policy reasons behind the
      court’s authority to amend the case plan goal at any time. The case plan
      is for the benefit of the child and the goal is permanency. When a
      parent’s performance demonstrates not only failure to comply with a
      case plan, but also that the child’s needs are best served by a change in
      goal, the trial court must have discretion to amend the goal to meet the
      needs of the child. To do less would put the interest of the parent ahead
      of the child.

Petition denied.




  L.C.A.’s mother, L.C., also objected to the orders sought to be quashed; her separate petition for certiorari is pending in this Court as Case No. 3D20-0102.