Postdisposition change of custody.§ 39.522
Related court rules: Rule 8.345 Post-disposition relief · Rule 8.430
65 opinions cite § 39.522
-
Department of Children & Families v. Foster Parents of K.J. 3D2024-1958 · 3rd DCA 2025
Order granting foster caregivers limited party status quashed; they lacked the section 39.522(3) presumption because the move would unite the child with a sibling.
…adopt K.J. and unite K.J. with his sibling. The issue presented concerns whether the Caregivers are entitled to party status under subsection (3) of section 39.522, Florida Statutes. While the statute at issue is far from a model of clarity, we agree with the Department and the Guardian that a caregiver is not entitled…
-
T.N.L. v. Department of Children & Families 132 So. 3d 319 · 4D13-1577 · 4th DCA 2014
· cited by 3 in all courts
Denial of reunification reversed for a new hearing because the amended best-interest standard took effect afterward, so the mother may present more evidence.
…mother argues the court could not deny reunification absent a specific finding that A.L.’s safety and well-being would be endangered. She relies on section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2012), which, at the time of the reunification hearing, provided that a child must be reunited with the offending parent if the parent has…
-
E.N. v. Department of Children & Families 224 So. 3d 900 · 2DCASE2D17-1066 · 2nd DCA 2017
· cited by 1 in all courts
Order starting reunification therapy with the father quashed because the court ignored the statutory reunification standard and its best-interest findings lacked evidentiary support.
…with the case plan, whether reunification would be detrimental to the child, and whether reunification would be in the child's best interest. See § 39.522(3), Fla. Stat. (2016); see also W.H., 109 So. 3d at 1270. The version of section 39.522(3) applicable for our review in this case provided: In…
-
Guardian ad Litem Program v. S.S. 2D23-2529 · 2nd DCA 2024
Certiorari granted and order quashed because prospective adoptive parents are only participants, not parties, and cannot intervene as parties in a dependency case.
…hearing when they did not fall within the definition of parties). Furthermore, to the extent that the Prospective Parents argue that pursuant to section 39.522, Florida Statutes (2023), the issue of intervention became moot on January 14, 2024, we disagree. Although the Prospective Parents allege that on that date…
-
Guardian ad Litem Program v. S.S. 2D2023-2529 · 2nd DCA 2024
Certiorari granted and the order quashed because prospective adoptive parents are participants, not parties, and the court wrongly let them intervene as parties.
…hearing when they did not fall within the definition of parties). Furthermore, to the extent that the Prospective Parents argue that pursuant to section 39.522, Florida Statutes (2023), the issue of intervention became moot on January 14, 2024, we disagree. Although the Prospective Parents allege that on that date…
-
J.G. v. Department of Children & Families 220 So. 3d 555 · 3D17-0697 · 3rd DCA 2017
· cited by 3 in all courts
Order ending supervision without a hearing on the mother's reunification motion quashed on DCF's concession; an evidentiary hearing under section 39.522 is required.
…and commendable confession of error, we grant the petition, quash the order under review, and remand for an evidentiary hearing consistent with section 39.522(2), (3), Florida Statutes (2017). The Mother’s minor children, including M.G., were adjudicated dependent in February 2016. Thereafter, several case…
-
S.V.-R. v. Department of Children & Family Services 77 So. 3d 687 · 3D11-1580 · 3rd DCA 2011
· cited by 1 in all courts
Reunification denial reversed: a substantially compliant mother is judged under the section 39.522(2) endangerment standard, not best-interest factors.
…This case requires us to consider the applicability of different and apparently inconsistent statutory provisions relating to reunification, sections 39.522(2) 1 and 39.621(10), 2 Florida Statutes (2010). *689 We reverse the orders below, and remand the case for a restoration of the status quo and further…
-
E.I. v. Department of Children & Families 979 So. 2d 378 · 4D07-4847 · 4th DCA 2008
· cited by 6 in all courts
Denial of the mother's motion for reunification affirmed, but remanded for a corrected order addressing the statutory factors.
…returned. C.D. v. Dep't of Children and Families, 974 So.2d 495, 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The trial court must address the factors listed in section 39.522(2), which are: (a) The compliance or noncompliance of the parent with the case plan; (b) The circumstances which caused the child's dependency and whether…
-
C.D. v. Department of Children & Families 974 So. 2d 495 · 1D06-6397 · 1st DCA 2008
· cited by 19 in all courts
Denial of reunification and permanent guardianship reversed: the order lacked required findings and evidence did not overcome the presumption favoring a substantially compliant mother.
…and emotional health.'" (quoting B.D.E. v. Dep't of Children & Family Services, 829 So.2d 359, 360 (Fla. 1st DCA *500 2002)). Similarly, section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2006), requires the trial court to "determine whether the parent has substantially complied with the . . . case plan to the extent that the…
-
C.R. v. Department of Children & Families 253 So. 3d 97 · 3D18-0046 · 3rd DCA 2018
Termination reversed because the Department failed to prove case plan noncompliance on either alleged ground; the mother had made significant progress.
…in care for any 12 of the last 22 months and the parents have not substantially complied with the case plan so as to permit reunification under s. 39.522(2) unless the failure to substantially comply with the case plan was due to the parent's lack of financial resources or to the failure of the…
-
E.S. v. L.G. 1D20-0458 · 1st DCA 2020
Order changing the child's placement from the father was affirmed; section 39.522 governs, and the Chapter 61 time-sharing factors do not apply in dependency cases.
…father. After the three other children were reunified with their mother, the mother filed a post-disposition motion to change R.S.’s placement under section 39.522, Florida Statutes. After a hearing, the court below granted the motion, finding that it was in the child’s best interest. We affirm and write to address one…
-
Department of Children & Families v. J.J. 4D2024-1266 · 4th DCA 2024
Orders creating a permanent guardianship with an Ohio uncle were reversed for lack of notice, evidentiary hearing, section 39.6221 findings, home study and ICPC compliance.
…that a home study be completed before a child is ordered to any out-of-home placement, other than a licensed shelter or foster home. See § 39.522; Dep’t of Children & Families v. R.G., 821 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (finding that trial court erred in changing legal and physical…
-
K.N. v. Department of Children & Families 4D22-2273 · 4th DCA 2023
Denial of intervention to former foster parents affirmed since they were only participants; their appeal of the placement change was dismissed for lack of standing.
…proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure. § 39.013(1), Fla. Stat. (2022); Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.000. This includes MOP hearings. § 39.522(2), Fla. Stat. (2022); Fla. R. Jud. P. 8.345(a). Appellants argue that they were indispensable parties, and as such, the court should have granted their…
-
Department of Children & Families v. M.D. 3D21-1060 · 3rd DCA 2021
Order denying removal of the child from the mother's home was quashed because the court ignored the circumstances that caused the dependency.
…motion for modification of placement seeking removal of K.D., the five-year-old daughter of respondent M.D., from the mother’s home pursuant to section 39.522(4), Florida Statutes (2020), due to safety concerns as to the child. “As the protection of the health, safety, and well-being of a child is of paramount…
-
C.L. v. Department of Children & Families 3D20-0590 · 3rd DCA 2020
Termination affirmed because the child was in care 12 of 22 months and the father did not substantially comply with the case plan.
…been in care for any 12 of the last 22 months and the parents have not substantially complied with the case plan so as to permit reunification under s. 39.522(2) unless the failure to substantially comply with the case plan was due to the parent's lack of financial resources or to the failure of the department to…
-
Q.L. v. Department of Children & Families 4D19-0526 · 4th DCA 2019
Termination reversed because the mother completed all services and findings of ongoing domestic violence and housing instability were unsupported or stale.
…v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 961 So. 2d 1131, 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Where the issue is whether a child should be reunited with a parent, section 39.522(2) provides: the court shall review the conditions for return and determine whether the circumstances that caused the out-of-home placement…
-
L.S. v. Department of Children & Families 274 So. 3d 556 · 5D19-0570 · 5th DCA 2019
Order giving the father permanent custody and closing the case reversed; the mother, who substantially complied with her case plan, deserved an evidentiary hearing.
…child would be endangered by being returned to Mother's custody, and whether it was in the child's best interest to be returned to Mother's custody. See §§ 39.522(3), 39.621(11), Fla. Stat. (2018) ; K.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams. , 227 So. 3d 783 , 783 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (reversing and remanding for evidentiary…
-
State v. M.A. 215 So. 3d 1276 · 1D16-5873 · 1st DCA 2017
Dismissal of the dependency case, effectively placing children with an out-of-state father, reversed because ICPC approval and a home study had not been obtained.
…of Children (ICPC) as required by section 409.401, Florida Statutes, and the lack of a home study of the father’s residence in Indiana. See §§ 39.521(3)(b), 39.522(1), Fla. Stat. (2016). We agree with the Department, and hold that however well intentioned, the circuit court committed error in dismissing the…
-
Guardian ad Litem Program v. Department of Children & Families 143 So. 3d 1075 · 2D14-1685 · 2nd DCA 2014
· cited by 1 in all courts
Order moving the child from foster parents to the grandmother quashed because the court never considered whether the change served the child's best interest.
…harm due to J.S.'s special needs and his current placement in a long-term, stable environment. In response, DCF asserts that section 39.522(1), Florida Statutes (2013), while requiring the circuit court to consider the child's best interest, does not mandate that a circuit court make an express…
-
C.M. v. Department of Children & Family Services 73 So. 3d 320 · 2D11-3466 · 2nd DCA 2011
· cited by 1 in all courts
Orders denying reunification and ending supervision reversed because they lacked the section 39.621(10) factor findings and any finding that reunification would endanger the child.
…order denying reunification.” L.J.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 995 So.2d 1151, 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Additionally, section 39.522(2) requires that when a court considers whether a child should be reunited with a parent, it “shall determine whether the parent has substantially complied with…
-
T.S. v. Department of Children & Families 992 So. 2d 299 · 5D08-1064 · 5th DCA 2008
Order denying placement with the non-offending out-of-state father quashed because the court used the best-interest standard instead of the endangerment standard.
…and grant relief because the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by applying the best interest of the child standard under section 39.522(1), Florida Statutes (2007), instead of the standard set forth in section 39.521(3)(b) with regard to a non-offending parent who requests custody. Based upon…
-
G.V. v. Department of Children & Families 985 So. 2d 1243 · 4D07-4988TO4D07-4990 · 4th DCA 2008
· cited by 4 in all courts
Denial of reunification reversed because the mother substantially complied with her case plan and outdated testimony did not support a finding of danger.
…and with the help *1246 that she needs and following through with it. Ultimately, the psycho-therapist strongly recommended reunification. Section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes, provides that: In cases where the issue before the court is whether a child should be reunited with a parent, the court shall determine…
-
K.F. v. Department of Children & Families 963 So. 2d 947 · 4D07-1315 · 4th DCA 2007
· cited by 1 in all courts
Removal of the children to foster care reversed because no evidence showed the tenants with criminal histories endangered them or that removal served their interests.
…competent, substantial evidence to support a finding that *949 removing the children from her custody was in the best interests of the children. Section 39.522, Florida Statutes, governing postdisposition changes of custody, provides that the standard for such a change in custody "shall be the best interest of the…
-
K.E. v. Department of Children & Families 958 So. 2d 968 · 5D06-3294 · 5th DCA 2007
· cited by 9 in all courts
Custody to the father and end of jurisdiction reversed because abandoning the reunification goal required a noticed case plan amendment and evidentiary hearing.
…to reunification with the children if she substantially complied with her case plan and if reunification would not be detrimental to the children."); §§ 39.522(2) and 39.701(9)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006). In a situation where the offending parent has not yet substantially complied with the case plan and the time for such…
-
H.G. v. Department of Children & Families 916 So. 2d 1006 · 4D04-4617 · 4th DCA 2006
· cited by 2 in all courts
Denial of reunification reversed: the mother substantially complied with the case plan, and tasks never added to it could not count against her.
…that the safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health of the child is not endangered by the return of the child to the home." *1009 § 39.522(2), Fla. Stat. (2003). Section 39.01(68) defines "substantial compliance" as: [T]he circumstances which caused the creation of the case plan have been…
-
D.S. v. Department of Children & Families 900 So. 2d 628 · 5D04-739 · 5th DCA 2005
· cited by 9 in all courts
Closing the case with permanent custody to the fathers reversed; the mother substantially complied and got no time to complete an added evaluation.
…that the well being and safety of the child will not be endangered upon the child's remaining with or being returned to the child's parent. [11] Section 39.522(2) provides: (2) In cases where the issue before the court is whether a child should be reunited with a parent, the court shall determine whether the…
-
Department of Children & Families v. T.L. 854 So. 2d 819 · 4D03-1624 · 4th DCA 2003
· cited by 4 in all courts
Placement of the child with her aunt reversed because the statutes required a completed home study before placing her with a relative.
…DCF's objection. DCF specifically objected to the child being placed with the aunt before the background check and home study had been completed. Section 39.522, Florida Statutes (2002), governs "postdisposition change of custody" and provides in part: The court may change the temporary legal custody or the…
-
Guardian ad Litem Program v. Department of Children & Families 5D2024-3280 · 5th DCA 2025
Certiorari denied because binding Fellows precedent lets the receiving state rescind an ICPC placement; the court urged reconsidering Fellows.
…that testimony, the court found that the enumerated statutory factors “appear facially favorable to ordering placement of the child with the mother.” See § 39.522(6), Fla. Stat. (listing placement factors). The court nonetheless ordered that B.G. remain in Florida foster care based substantially on its…
-
L.C. v. Department of Children & Families 3D20-0102 · 3rd DCA 2020
Certiorari denied against an order changing the case plan goal; courts may change the goal when the parent fails to comply and permanency requires.
…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…
-
J.G. v. Department of Children & Families 3D19-2206 · 3rd DCA 2020
Certiorari dismissed because the deported father, who did not seek custody, showed no irreparable harm from moving the child from the aunt to foster care.
…J.G., seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s non-final order modifying R.G.’s placement from the custody of his paternal aunt into foster care.1 See § 39.522, Fla. Stat. (2019). The trial court found that it was in R.G.’s best interests to remove him from the custody of the paternal aunt as a result of the…
-
F.C.A. v. Department of Children & Families 3D20-0087 · 3rd DCA 2020
Certiorari denied against an order changing the case plan goal; courts may change the goal when the parent fails to comply and permanency requires.
…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…
-
Y.V. v. Department of Children & Families 271 So. 3d 1160 · 3D19-0446 · 3rd DCA 2019
Certiorari denied; custody may change after disposition without a new adjudicatory hearing if in the child's best interest, and the judge's questioning was proper.
…of custody without the necessity of another adjudicatory hearing if it finds the need for a change is in the “best interest of the child.” See section 39.522(1), Fla. Stat. (2017). See also R.W. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 189 So. 3d 978, 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“Upon the record presented, we find no…
-
B.F. v. Department of Children & Families 237 So. 3d 390 · 4D17-2986 · 4th DCA 2018
· cited by 3 in all courts
Abandonment ground reversed because the Department did not prove the incarcerated father was able to support the child or lacked a relationship; termination otherwise affirmed.
…in care for any 12 of the last 22 months and the parents have not substantially complied with the case plan so as to permit reunification under §39.522(2) Florida Statutes. 3 substantial and positive relationship” includes, but is not limited to, frequent and…
-
K.C. v. Department of Children & Families 227 So. 3d 783 · 5D17-2266 · 5th DCA 2017
· cited by 1 in all courts
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.
…the case, without making a finding that reunification with Mother would either endanger the child or not be in the child’s best interest pursuant to section 39.522(3), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing. See M.M., 29 So.3d at 1201 . REVERSED and REMANDED with Instructions. …
-
K.C. v. Department of Children & Families 5D17-2266-2 · 5th DCA 2017
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.
…the case, without making a finding that reunification with Mother would either endanger the child or not be in the child's best interest pursuant to section 39.522(3), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing. See M.M., 29 So. 3d at 1201. REVERSED and REMANDED with…
-
R.M. v. Department of Children & Families 114 So. 3d 392 · 3D12-3063 · 3rd DCA 2013
…in its order, has been addressed at least in part by the Florida Legislature in the 2013 legislative session. See Ch.2013-21, § 3, Laws of Fla. (amending § 39.522, Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 2013, adding subsection (3), to provide that in a post-disposition change of custody proceeding in which the issue is…
-
M.N. v. Department of Children & Families 120 So. 3d 3 · 1D12-3199 · 1st DCA 2012
· cited by 2 in all courts
Denial of reunification reversed because the mother substantially complied with her plan and the finding of danger rested on unsubstantiated opinions, not competent substantial evidence.
…reunification: the parent’s compliance with the case plan and whether reunification would be detrimental to the child. C.D., 974 So.2d at 500 . Section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2011), suggests that when a parent requests reunification and has substantially complied with the case plan there is a presumption of…
-
T.L. v. Department of Children & Families 98 So. 3d 785 · 4D12-947 · 4th DCA 2012
· cited by 1 in all courts
Denial of reunification and permanent guardianship vacated because the mother had completed her case plan and no finding rebutted the presumption of return.
…the trial court’s finding that the Mother was not in substantial compliance with her case plan was not supported by competent substantial evidence. Section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2011), provides: (2) In cases where the issue before the court is whether a child should be reunited with a parent, the court shall…
-
L.K. v. Department of Children & Family Services 39 So. 3d 1288 · 2D10-1168 · 2nd DCA 2010
· cited by 2 in all courts
Order giving the father permanent custody and ending supervision reversed; the court never decided the mother's case plan compliance or the child's best interests.
…of the child. Both the Department of Children and Family Services and the Guardian ad Li-tem have conceded error based on the plain language of section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2007), which provides that “[i]n cases where the issue before the court is whether a child should be reunited with a parent, the court …
-
M.M. v. Department of Children & Families 29 So. 3d 1200 · 5D09-3669 · 5th DCA 2010
· cited by 7 in all courts
Permanent custody to the non-offending father reversed because the court never decided whether the mother substantially complied or reunification would be detrimental.
…whether the mother had substantially complied with her case plan or whether reunification would be detrimental to the children, as required by section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes. This court has repeatedly held that it is reversible error to permanently award custody to a non-offending parent when the offending parent…
-
L.M. v. Department of Children & Families 20 So. 3d 408 · 4D09-1350 · 4th DCA 2009
· cited by 1 in all courts
Reversed because the court did not adequately find whether the mother substantially complied with the case plan or address the six statutory reunification factors.
…that both parents substantially complied with the case plan, custody of the children would be determined based on their best interests. See § 39.522(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). Additionally, section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes (2009), mandates that six factors “be considered and addressed in the findings…
-
In re M.V.-B. 19 So. 3d 381 · 2D08-3616 · 2nd DCA 2009
· cited by 11 in all courts
Appeal dismissed: grandparents lack standing, and a postadjudication nonfinal placement order is reviewable only by certiorari, for which the father showed no basis.
…rights, but no such departure is alleged in this appeal. This case actually involves an attempt to change custody of the child postdisposition under section 39.522, and the grandparents cannot even demonstrate that any interested party filed a petition to change custody under that statute. Accordingly, we dismiss the…
-
T.R. v. Department of Children & Families 13 So. 3d 140 · 5D08-4229 · 5th DCA 2009
…summarily reversed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(b), and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with sections 39.522 and 39.621, Florida Statutes. REVERSED and REMANDED. PALMER, C.J., ORFINGER and LAWSON, J.J. concur.
-
P.S. v. Department of Children & Families 4 So. 3d 719 · 5D08-3140 · 5th DCA 2009
· cited by 4 in all courts
A second dependency adjudication was improper under the statute, but requiring the father to complete a case plan was proper; remanded for a supplemental order.
… whether the placement would “endanger the safety, well-being, or physical, mental, or emotional health of the child.” See §§ 39.521 (3)(b), 39.522, Fla. Stat. (2008).
-
L.J.S. v. Department of Children & Families 995 So. 2d 1151 · 1D07-5941 · 1st DCA 2008
· cited by 4 in all courts
Denial of reunification and permanent guardianship reversed because the order lacked findings on five statutory factors and contradicted the oral case-plan-compliance finding.
…consideration of two factors: (1) the parent's compliance with the case plan, and (2) whether reunification would be detrimental to the children. See § 39.522(2), Fla. Stat. (2004); C.D., 974 So.2d at 500 . When considering these two factors, the trial court must specifically address the following six sub-factors:…
-
Guardian ad Litem Program v. R.A. 995 So. 2d 1083 · 5D08-1993 · 5th DCA 2008
· cited by 5 in all courts
Order moving the child from her foster home to the grandmother quashed because the court wrongly assumed a relative preference instead of deciding best interests.
…current home and placed with her grandmother. The standard for ordering a change in the placement of a dependent child is the child's best interest. See § 39.522(1), Fla. Stat. (2008). In addition, section 39.521(1)(d)8.b., Florida Statutes, expressly provides that when "no suitable relative is found and the child is…
-
R.J. v. Guardian ad Litem Program 993 So. 2d 176 · 5D07-3959 · 5th DCA 2008
· cited by 1 in all courts
Treated as certiorari, the challenge to a non-final order changing the child's placement was denied because the best-interest findings were supported by the evidence.
…we treat the matter as a certiorari proceeding. In this case, the trial court found that the placement would be in the child's best interest, see section 39.522(1), Florida Statutes (2007), and the evidence supports the trial court's factual findings. Accordingly, we deny certiorari. DENIED. PALMER, C.J., LAWSON and…
-
C.B. v. Department of Children & Families 975 So. 2d 1158 · 5D07-2049 · 5th DCA 2008
· cited by 6 in all courts
Nonfinal appeal treated as certiorari; writ granted because the court could not reinstate supervision and remove never-adjudicated children without filing a new dependency action.
…that the trial court was authorized to order the children removed from the mother's custody, without initiating a new dependency action, based upon section 39.522, Florida Statutes, which allows the court to "change the temporary legal custody or the conditions of protective supervision at a post-disposition hearing,…
-
R.H. v. Department of Children & Families 948 So. 2d 898 · 5D06-1324 · 5th DCA 2007
· cited by 9 in all courts
Closing the case and giving the fathers custody without notice or a written motion violated due process; the case plan noncompliance finding stood.
…to her unless the court determined the safety, well-being, and physical, mental and emotional health of the children would be endangered by their return. § 39.522(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). See also D.G. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 903 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); D.S., 900 So.2d at 632 . We reject this…
-
Guardian ad Litem Program v. Department of Children & Families 936 So. 2d 1183 · 5D06-1764 · 5th DCA 2006
· cited by 1 in all courts
Denial of foster parents' motions for change of placement and visitation affirmed; the earlier placement order was untimely appealed, and keeping siblings together justified it.
…because the trial judge under the circumstances of this case is in a better position than we are to evaluate how best to provide for the care of M.Z. See § 39.522, Fla. Stat. (2005). We affirm, as well, because the appellant *1184 attempts by this appeal to challenge the sufficiency of a motion presented by DCF to…
-
R.W. v. Department of Children & Families 909 So. 2d 402 · 1D04-4853 · 1st DCA 2005
Permanent custody with the non-offending father affirmed; the mother's substantial case plan compliance did not mandate return to her.
…the best interest of the child. Clearly, substantial compliance with a case plan is a prerequisite to reuniting a parent and a dependent child. See § 39.522(2) and § 39.701(9)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004). However, compliance by itself, does not mandate reunification with the offending parent under these circumstances.…
-
J.J. v. Department of Children & Families 886 So. 2d 1046 · 4D04-762 · 4th DCA 2004
· cited by 8 in all courts
Order reversed because after DCF failed to prove best interests the court could not order a retrial; it had to follow section 39.811 remedies.
…that the well-being and safety of the child will not be endangered upon the child's remaining with or being returned to the child's parent." See also § 39.522(2). While the trial court's conclusion that the parents did not substantially comply with their case plans is supported by substantial competent evidence, the…
-
S.L. v. Department of Children & Families 852 So. 2d 372 · 5D02-2593 · 5th DCA 2003
· cited by 1 in all courts
Placement of dependent children with the mother and maternal grandparents rather than the father affirmed; the court reasonably found return to him posed safety concerns.
…to the extent that the safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health of the child is not endangered by the return of the child to the home. § 39.522(2), Fla. Stat. Further, even if the stated rule in Hammond applied in this case, the trial court had the discretion to place the children with the…
-
R.F. v. Department of Children & Families 844 So. 2d 821 · 5D02-3363 · 5th DCA 2003
· cited by 3 in all courts
Denial of the father's reunification motion affirmed despite case plan compliance and a positive home study, because return would harm the children, who feared him.
…39.521(3)(b), Florida Statutes, requires the trial court to place the children with the parent upon completion of a home study, this section and sections 39.522(2) and 39.701(8)(b), Florida Statutes, provide that the return to the parent is authorized only when the placement will not be detrimental to the children's…
-
E.B. v. Department of Children & Families 844 So. 2d 761 · 5D02-2916 · 5th DCA 2003
Long-term custody with the grandmother vacated because the father was denied a chance to present evidence of case plan compliance; evidentiary hearing on reunification required.
…the terms of his case plan to the extent that the safety, well-being, and physical, mental and emotional health of the child is endangered by reunification § 39.522(2), Fla. Stat. (2002); C.F. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 822 So.2d 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); see also L.L.C. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, …
-
L.F. v. Department of Children & Family Services 837 So. 2d 1098 · 4D01-4152 · 4th DCA 2003
· cited by 2 in all courts
Order leaving both children in the father's permanent custody reversed because a stepfather is not a parent or relative and no noncompliance was found.
…court, we assume that one was filed based upon a statement in the motion for rehearing of the court's order. [2] The parties argue as to whether section 39.522 applies, dealing with postdisposition changes of temporary legal custody, not the permanent custody determination which was made in this case. Unlike S.J. v.…
-
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure - 2021 Fast-Track Report SC21-1681-2 · Florida Supreme Court 2022
…8.973 orders. The more significant amendments are discussed below. First, rule 8.217 is amended to conform with recent legislative changes to section 39.522(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2021), which now requires an attorney for the child (rather than an attorney ad litem) to be appointed when a caregiver provides notice…
-
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure - 2021 Fast-Track Report SC21-1681 · Florida Supreme Court 2022
…8.973 orders. The more significant amendments are discussed below. First, rule 8.217 is amended to conform with recent legislative changes to section 39.522(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2021), which now requires an attorney for the child (rather than an attorney ad litem) to be appointed when a caregiver provides notice…
-
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure – 2020 Fast-Track Report SC20-1153-2 · Florida Supreme Court 2020
…jurisdiction 1 and adopt the amendments as proposed. In response to chapter 2020-65 and chapter 2020-138, Laws of Florida, which amend sections 39.0137, 39.522, 39.6011, and 39.701, Florida Statutes (2019), and became effective July 1, 2020, the Committee proposes amendments to the following rules: 8.225 (Process,…
-
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure - 2017 Fast-Track Report 235 So. 3d 322 · SC17-2040 · Florida Supreme Court 2018
…Fla. Stat.; effective May 1, 2017); ch. 2017-151, §§ 3, 7, 10, 12-13, 17, 21, 46, Laws of Fla. (amending §§ 39.013(2), 39.402(8)(c), 39.507(7)(b), 39.521(1)(a), 39.522(2), (3), 39.6035(4), 39.801(3)(a), Fla. Stat.; effective July 1, 2017). -2- of hearing on a motion to supplement and…
-
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure-2017 Fast-Track Report 235 So. 3d 322 · SC17-2040-2 · Florida Supreme Court 2018
…Fla. Stat.; effective May 1, 2017); ch, 2017-151, §§ 3, 7, 10, 12-13, 17, 21, 46, Laws of,Fla. (amending §§ 39.013(2), 39.402(8)(c)j 39.5Q7(7)(b), 39.521(l)(a), 39.522(2), (3), 39.6035(4), 39,801(3)(a), Fla. .Stat.; effective July 1, 2017). . All comments must be filed with the Court on or before April 2, 2018, with a…
-
In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure - 2024 Legislation SC2024-1093 · Florida Supreme Court 2024
…a child from a court-ordered placement and take the child into custody as provided by law. The new subdivision follows the procedure set out in section 39.522(7), Florida Statutes (2024), which was enacted by chapter 2024-177, section 4, Laws of Florida. -3- Further,…
-
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure - 2020 Fast-Track Report SC20-1153 · Florida Supreme Court 2021
…8.400 (Case Plan Development), and 8.415 (Judicial Review of Dependency Cases). These amendments were in response to legislative changes to sections 39.0137, 39.522, 39.6011, and 39.701, Florida Statutes (2019). See ch. 2020-65, § 2, Laws of Fla.; ch. 2020-138, §§ 5-7, Laws of Fla. The amendments included, but were…
-
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure - 2019 Fast-Track Report SC19-1818 · Florida Supreme Court 2020
…and 39.701(4), Fla. Stat., effective July 1, 2019); ch. 2019-128, §§ 1-4, 6-7, 10, 12, Laws of Fla. (amending §§ 39.001(3), 39.0136, 39.402(18), 39.507(7)(c), 39.522(1), 39.6011(2)(e), 39.6011(4), 39.621(10)(a), and 39.811(5), Fla. Stat., effective Oct. 1, 2019). -2- Committee’s…
-
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure 123 So. 3d 1128 · SC13-1354 · Florida Supreme Court 2013
· cited by 1 in all courts
… ch.2012-81, § 1, Laws of Fla. (amending § 39.802(4)); ch.2012-84, § 2, Laws of Fla. (amending § 20.19, Fla. Stat.); eh.2013-21, § 3, Laws of Fla. (creating § 39.522(3), Fla. Stat.); ch. 2013-107 (amending § 90.702, Fla. Stat.); ch.2013-112, §§ 3, 4, Laws of Fla. (amending §§ 985.032, 985.455(1), Fla. Stat.); ch. 2013-162…
No opinion cites this provision by number.
3 admin code rules cite § 39.522
DCF's rules in Chapter 65C, Florida Administrative Code, that cite it or name it as the law they implement.
- Rule 65C-16.005 Evaluation of Applicants. (3)(s)cites (3)
- Rule 65C-30.002 Safety Planning and Case Transfer. Implements
- Rule 65C-30.023 Multidisciplinary Team Staffing. Implements(7)(d)(8)(a)(8)(c)cites (3), (3)(b), (3)(c)
No admin code rule cites this provision.
1 CFOP cite § 39.522
How DCF carries it out. A page opens in the CFOP reader with the citation highlighted.
- CFOP 170-15 Federal and State Funding Eligibility p. 91 (2)
No CFOP cites this provision.
Shading shows how often opinions cite each provision: rarely sometimes often most. Click a provision to list the opinions citing it.
(1) The court may change the temporary legal custody or the conditions of protective supervision at a postdisposition hearing, without the necessity of another adjudicatory hearing.
(2)(a) At any time before a child is residing in the permanent placement approved at the permanency hearing, a child who has been placed in the child’s own home under the protective supervision of an authorized agent of the department, in the home of a relative, in the home of a legal custodian, or in some other place may be brought before the court by the department or by any other interested person, upon the filing of a motion alleging a need for a change in the conditions of protective supervision or the placement. If any party or the current caregiver denies the need for a change, the court shall hear all parties in person or by counsel, or both.
(b) Upon the admission of a need for a change or after such hearing, the court shall enter an order changing the placement, modifying the conditions of protective supervision, or continuing the conditions of protective supervision as ordered. The standard for changing custody of the child shall be the best interests of the child. When determining whether a change of legal custody or placement is in the best interests of the child, the court shall consider the factors listed in s. 39.01375 and the report filed by the multidisciplinary team, if applicable, unless the change of custody or placement is made pursuant to s. 63.082(6). The court shall also consider the priority of placements established under s. 39.4021 when making a decision regarding the best interest of the child in out-of-home care.
(c) If the child is not placed in foster care, the new placement for the child must meet the home study criteria and court approval under this chapter.
(3)(a) For purposes of this subsection, the term “change in physical custody” means a change by the department or community-based care lead agency to the child’s physical residential address, regardless of whether such change requires a court order to change the legal custody of the child. However, this term does not include a change in placement made pursuant to s. 63.082(6).
(b)1. In a hearing on the change of physical custody under this section, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that it is in the child’s best interest to remain permanently in his or her current physical placement if:
a. The child has been in the same safe and stable placement for 9 consecutive months or more;
b. Reunification is not a permanency option for the child;
c. The caregiver is able, willing, and eligible for consideration as an adoptive parent or permanent custodian for the child;
d. The caregiver is not requesting the change in physical placement; and
e. The change in physical placement being sought is not to reunify the child with his or her parent or sibling or transition the child from a safe and stable nonrelative caregiver to a safe and stable relative caregiver.
2. In order to rebut the presumption established in this paragraph, the court shall hold an evidentiary hearing on the change in physical custody to determine if the change in placement is in the best interest of the child. As part of the evidentiary hearing, the court must consider competent and substantial evidence and testimony related to the factors enumerated in s. 39.01375 and any other evidence deemed relevant to a determination of placement, including evidence from a court-selected neutral and independent licensed professional with expertise in the science and research of child-parent bonding.
3. This presumption may not be rebutted solely by the expressed wishes of a biological parent, a biological relative, or a caregiver of a sibling of the child.
(c)1. The department or community-based care lead agency must notify a current caregiver who has been in the physical custody placement for at least 9 consecutive months and who meets all the established criteria in paragraph (b) of an intent to change the physical custody of the child, and a multidisciplinary team staffing must be held in accordance with ss. 39.4022 and 39.4023 at least 21 days before the intended date for the child’s change in physical custody, unless there is an emergency situation as defined in s. 39.4022(2)(b). If there is not a unanimous consensus decision reached by the multidisciplinary team, the department’s official position must be provided to the parties within the designated time period as provided for in s. 39.4022.
2. A caregiver who objects to the department’s official position on the change in physical custody must notify the court and the department or community-based care lead agency of his or her objection and the intent to request an evidentiary hearing in writing in accordance with this section within 5 days after receiving notice of the department’s official position provided under subparagraph 1. The transition of the child to the new caregiver may not begin before the expiration of the 5-day period within which the current caregiver may object.
3. Upon the department or community-based care lead agency receiving written notice of the caregiver’s objection, the change to the child’s physical custody must be placed in abeyance and the child may not be transitioned to a new physical placement without a court order, unless there is an emergency situation as defined in s. 39.4022(2)(b).
4. Within 7 days after receiving written notice from the caregiver, the court must conduct an initial case status hearing, at which time the court must do all of the following:
a. Grant party status to the current caregiver who is seeking permanent custody and has maintained physical custody of that child for at least 9 continuous months for the limited purpose of filing a motion for a hearing on the objection and presenting evidence pursuant to this subsection.
b. Advise the caregiver of his or her right to retain counsel for purposes of the evidentiary hearing.
c. Appoint a court-selected neutral and independent licensed professional with expertise in the science and research of child-parent bonding.
(d) The court must conduct the evidentiary hearing and provide a written order of its findings regarding the placement that is in the best interest of the child no later than 90 days after the date the caregiver provided written notice to the court under this subsection. The court must provide its written order to the department or community-based care lead agency, the caregiver, and the prospective caregiver. The party status granted to the current caregiver under sub-subparagraph (c)4.a. terminates upon the written order by the court, or upon the 90-day time limit established in this paragraph, whichever occurs first.
(e) If the court orders that the physical custody of the child change from the current caregiver after the evidentiary hearing, the department or community-based care lead agency must implement the appropriate transition plan developed in accordance with ss. 39.4022 and 39.4023 or as ordered by the court.
(4) In cases where the issue before the court is whether a child should be reunited with a parent, the court shall review the conditions for return and determine whether the circumstances that caused the out-of-home placement and issues subsequently identified have been remedied to the extent that the return of the child to the home with an in-home safety plan prepared or approved by the department will not be detrimental to the child’s safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health.
(5) In cases where the issue before the court is whether a child who is placed in the custody of a parent should be reunited with the other parent upon a finding that the circumstances that caused the out-of-home placement and issues subsequently identified have been remedied to the extent that the return of the child to the home of the other parent with an in-home safety plan prepared or approved by the department will not be detrimental to the child, the standard shall be that the safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health of the child would not be endangered by reunification and that reunification would be in the best interest of the child.
(6) In cases in which the issue before the court is whether to place a child in out-of-home care after the child was placed in the child’s own home with an in-home safety plan or the child was reunified with a parent or caregiver with an in-home safety plan, the court must consider, at a minimum, the following factors in making its determination whether to place the child in out-of-home care:
(a) The circumstances that caused the child’s dependency and other subsequently identified issues.
(b) The length of time the child has been placed in the home with an in-home safety plan.
(c) The parent’s or caregiver’s current level of protective capacities.
(d) The level of increase, if any, in the parent’s or caregiver’s protective capacities since the child’s placement in the home based on the length of time the child has been placed in the home.
The court shall additionally evaluate the child’s permanency goal and change the permanency goal as needed if doing so would be in the best interests of the child. If the court changes the permanency goal, the case plan must be amended pursuant to s. 39.6013(5).
(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a child’s case manager, an authorized agent of the department, or a law enforcement officer may, at any time, remove a child from a court-ordered placement and take the child into custody if the court-ordered caregiver of the child requests immediate removal of the child from the home. Additionally, an authorized agent of the department or a law enforcement officer may, at any time, remove a child from a court-ordered placement and take the child into custody if there is probable cause as required under s. 39.401(1)(b).
(a) If, at the time of the removal, the child was not placed in licensed care in the department’s custody, the department must file a motion to modify placement within 1 business day after the child is taken into custody. The court must then set a hearing within 24 hours after the motion is filed unless all of the parties and the current caregiver agree to the change of placement. At the hearing, the court must determine if the department has established probable cause to support the immediate removal of the child from his or her current placement. The court may base its determination on a sworn petition or affidavit or on testimony and may hear all relevant and material evidence, including oral or written reports, to the extent of their probative value, even if such evidence would not be competent evidence at an adjudicatory hearing.
(b) If the court finds that the department did not establish probable cause to support the removal of the child from his or her current placement, the court must enter an order that the child be returned to such placement. An order by the court to return the child to his or her current placement does not preclude a party from filing a subsequent motion pursuant to subsection (2).
(c) If the current caregiver admits that a change of placement is needed or the department establishes probable cause to support removal of the child, the court must enter an order changing the placement of the child. The new placement for the child must meet the home study criteria in this chapter if the child is not placed in foster care.
(d) If the court finds probable cause and modifies the child’s placement, the court must conduct a hearing pursuant to subsection (2) or subsection (3), unless such hearing is waived by all parties and the caregiver.
History. s. 25, ch. 2000-139; s. 14, ch. 2006-86; s. 3, ch. 2013-21; s. 13, ch. 2017-151; s. 6, ch. 2019-128; s. 5, ch. 2020-138; s. 10, ch. 2021-169; s. 19, ch. 2024-70; s. 4, ch. 2024-177.