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.H. v. Department of Children & Families924 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) · 4D05-3430

Court
4th DCA
Decided
2006-04-05
Case
Dependency
Appellant
Father

Reversed & remanded Order closing the case with the child placed with an aunt reversed: the six-month custody period was unmet and supervision was only conditionally terminated.

Issue
Permanency goals other than reunification
Facts
Relative or grandparent caregiver
Law cited
§ 39.622(9)

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

On CourtListener
924 So.2d 965 (2006)

J.H., the Father, Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 4D05-3430.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 5, 2006.

*966 Kathleen K. Pena of Law Offices of Kathleen K. Pena, Pembroke Pines, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Tricia D. Brissett, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

WARNER, J.

We reverse the order of the trial court which closed this dependency case by placing the dependent child in the care and custody of her paternal aunt and not the appellant father, but noted that "protective supervision is terminated, pending therapeutic recommendation—case is closed over father's objection." First, the child had not been in the aunt's custody for the required six months pursuant to section 39.622(9), Florida Statutes. Therefore, the court could not terminate protective supervision when it did. Second, it does not appear that the order in fact terminated protective supervision, because it was only terminated "pending therapeutic recommendation." Because there was not yet a therapeutic recommendation, the condition to terminating supervision had not been established, and the court erred in closing the case. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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