903 So.2d 1042 (2005)

D.G., Mother of J.R., A Child, Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 5D04-2524.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 17, 2005.

Ryan Thomas Truskoski of Ryan Thomas Truskoski, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Charles D. Peters, Orlando, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this dependency case, the lower court changed custody of the minor child to the child's father pursuant to section 39.521(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2005). At the time of the order transferring custody, however, the mother had substantially complied with her case plan, which had the sole goal of reunification of the child with the mother. Based on this fact, the court's change in custody was erroneous in the absence of a determination that reunification would be detrimental to the child. D.S. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 900 So.2d 628 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). We therefore vacate the permanent custody order and remand this cause to the lower court with instructions that it reunify, unless the court, upon sufficient factual findings, concludes that to do so would be detrimental to the child.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

SHARP, W., PLEUS, and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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

Cited by 6 opinions

In this collection (6)

K.C. v. Department of Children & Families 5D17-2266 · 5th DCA 2017Reversed & remanded Order giving the non-offending father permanent custody and closing the case reversed because the court made no finding that reunification with the compliant mother would be detrimental.
K.C. v. Department of Children & Families 5D17-2266-2 · 5th DCA 2017Reversed & remanded Order giving the non-offending father permanent custody and closing the case reversed because the court made no finding that reunification with the compliant mother would be detrimental.
B.W. v. Department of Children & Families 5D12-2189 · 5th DCA 2013Reversed & remanded Order denying the mother reunification with one child reversed because disputed detriment facts required an evidentiary hearing and findings before the court could rule.
M.M. v. Department of Children & Families 5D09-3669 · 5th DCA 2010Reversed & remanded Permanent custody to the non-offending father reversed because the court never decided whether the mother substantially complied or reunification would be detrimental.
K.E. v. Department of Children & Families 5D06-3294 · 5th DCA 2007 cites it 3 timesReversed & remanded Custody to the father and end of jurisdiction reversed because abandoning the reunification goal required a noticed case plan amendment and evidentiary hearing.
R.H. v. Department of Children & Families 5D06-1324 · 5th DCA 2007Reversed & remanded Closing the case and giving the fathers custody without notice or a written motion violated due process; the case plan noncompliance finding stood.

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

Cites 1 opinion in this collection

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

D.S. v. Department of Children & Families 5D04-739 · 5th DCA 2005Closing the case with permanent custody to the fathers reversed; the mother substantially complied and got no time to complete an added evaluation.

Dependency Law Finder

Before you use this site

D.G. v. Department of Children & Families903 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) · 5D04-2524

D.G., Mother of J.R., A Child, Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

Cited by 6 opinions

In this collection (6)

Cites 1 opinion in this collection

D.G. v. Department of Children & Families903 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) · 5D04-2524 Copy citation

D.G., Mother of J.R., A Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

Cited by 6 opinions

In this collection (6)

Cites 1 opinion in this collection

D.G. v. Department of Children & Families903 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) · 5D04-2524

D.G., Mother of J.R., A Child, Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.