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

C.C. v. Department of Children & Families108 So. 3d 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) · 5D12-3417

Court
5th DCA
Decided
2013-02-25
Case
Dependency
Appellant
Father

Reversed & remanded Permanent guardianship order reversed because it lacked the required detailed findings and did not specify the frequency and nature of the father's visitation.

Issues
Permanency goals other than reunification, Written findings & sufficiency of the order, Visitation & contact
Facts
Relative or grandparent caregiver

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

On CourtListener
PER CURIAM.

C.C., father of J.C., timely appeals a final order which terminated the Department of Children and Families’ protective supervision over his son and placed J.C. in the permanent guardianship of his paternal aunt. Although the trial court’s decision is supported by competent, substantial evidence, the final order itself does not contain or reference the detailed findings required by section 39.6221(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2012). See, e.g., R.T., Sr. v. Dep’t. of Children and Families, 27 So.3d 195 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). The order also fails to comply with section 39.6221(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2012), which requires the trial court to “[s]pecify the frequency and nature of visitation or contact between the child and his or her parents.” See, e.g., In re J.L.R., Jr., 64 So.3d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).1 Accordingly, we reverse and re*700mand for entry of an amended order that meets the requirements of section 39.6221(2)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GRIFFIN, PALMER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

. Although the Department highlights that the trial court ordered four hours per week of visitation at the hearing on the matter, the same is not reflected in the permanent guardianship order. Rather, the final order simply states that visitation shall be solely at the discretion of the guardian, which is insufficient under section 39.6221(2)(c), as explained in In re J.L.R., Jr.

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