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

P.R. v. Department of Children & Families936 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) · 4D05-4834

Court
4th DCA
Decided
2006-08-23
Case
Dependency
Appellant
Mother

Reversed & remanded Order ending supervision with relatives' long-term custody reversed: DCF filed no required case plan, the mother got no amended plan, and custodians' powers were omitted.

Issues
Permanency goals other than reunification, Written findings & sufficiency of the order, Disposition, case plan & reasonable efforts
Facts
Relative or grandparent caregiver
Law cited
§ 39.521(3)(d) (now § 39.521(3)) · § 39.601(9)(f) · § 39.622(1)

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

On CourtListener
936 So.2d 754 (2006)

P.R., the Mother, Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 4D05-4834.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

August 23, 2006.

Roger Ally of the Law Offices of Roger Ally, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Tricia D. Brissett, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Department of Children and Families.

Patricia M. Propheter, Orlando, for appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

P.R., the mother, appeals the trial court's order terminating protective supervision and placing her child in the long-term custody of relatives. We agree that the trial court failed to comply with certain statutory requirements in making its determination. *755 The trial court may not order long-term custody unless DCF has submitted a case plan that "describe[s] the responsibilities of the relative" and "does not include reunification with the parents." See § 39.622(1)-(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). Further, pursuant to section 39.601(9)(f), when the trial court amends a case plan, "[a] copy of the amended plan must be immediately given" to the child's parents. Lastly, section 39.521(3)(d) requires that "[t]he order terminating supervision by the department shall set forth the powers of the custodian . . . ." None of these requirements were met in the instant case. We therefore reverse the order on appeal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and Remanded.

STEVENSON, C.J., STONE, J., and BATEMAN, III, THOMAS HOWELL, Associate Judge, concur.

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