Permanency determination by the court.§ 39.621
Related court rules: Rule 8.425 Permanency hearings · Rule 8.430 Modification of permanency order
69 opinions cite § 39.621
-
A.A. v. Department of Children & Families 147 So. 3d 621 · 3D14-1020 · 3rd DCA 2014
· cited by 2 in all courts
Denial of the mother's motion to modify a permanent guardianship quashed because the court held no evidentiary hearing and made no section 39.621(10) findings.
…she was denied her due process right to present evidence and testimony in support of her motion. We agree. Once a permanency order is in place, section 39.621(9), 2 Florida Statutes (2014), places the burden on the parent seeking reunification or increased contact with the…
-
M.M. v. Department of Children & Families 189 So. 3d 134 · SC15-1544 · Florida Supreme Court 2016
· cited by 35 in all courts
Supreme Court held post-dependency orders subject to future modification, such as terminating supervision and limiting visitation, are nonfinal and reviewable by certiorari; Third District affirmed.
…that an order terminating supervision is not appealable because such orders do not necessarily conclude dependency proceedings. Id. (citing §§ 39.521, 39.621, Fla. Stat. (2014); Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.345; F.E., 1 So. 3d 305). Therefore, the Third District followed its precedent and treated the Father’s appeal as a…
-
D.P. v. Department of Children & Families 2D2022-3836 · 2nd DCA 2023
Order denying the father's reunification motion was quashed because it lacked written findings on each s. 39.621(10)(c) factor, and no rehearing motion was needed to preserve the issue.
…court's order is a departure from the essential requirements of the law because the court failed to make the requisite written findings under section 39.621(10)(c), Florida Statutes (2022). Because the order denying reunification was entered after dependency but before termination of supervision or jurisdiction, we treat…
-
S.M. v. Department of Children & Families 202 So. 3d 769 · SC15-2127 · Florida Supreme Court 2016
· cited by 37 in all courts
Supreme Court approved termination: least restrictive means does not require considering permanent guardianship instead of adoption once grounds and best interests shown.
…best interests of the child. Not only would this option be contrary to legal precedent, but it would also be contrary to the legislative scheme. Section 39.621, Florida Statutes (2016), specifies that permanent guardianship shall be considered only after reunification and adoption are not available options. …
-
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.
…note is this court’s recognition that even when applying section 39.522(2), however, the trial court must also make additional findings required under section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes (2012). See G.V. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 985 So.2d 1243, 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Section 39.621(10) provides the following:…
-
A.L. v. Department of Children & Families 53 So. 3d 324 · 5D10-1927 · 5th DCA 2010
· cited by 6 in all courts
Order ending jurisdiction with the children placed with the father reversed; a vague 'maintain and strengthen' goal and a shortened case plan violated due process.
…the order terminating jurisdiction, claiming it fails to comply with Chapter 39, Florida Statutes (2009), as it relates to permanency determinations. Section 39.621, Florida Statutes, requires that permanency hearings be held at specified times. The statute explains that “[t]ime is of the essence for permanency of…
-
L. v. Department of Children & Families 2D2025-3312 · 2nd DCA 2026
Certiorari granted and the order denying the father's reunification motion quashed because it lacked the findings required by section 39.621(10)(c).
…the father's motion for reunification. Because the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law by failing to address the factors in section 39.621(10)(c), Florida Statutes (2025), we grant the petition and quash the order. In August 2024 M.L. was sheltered and the Department of Children and Families filed…
-
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.
…The recommendation of the current custodian; and (f) The recommendation of the guardian ad litem, if one has been appointed. § 39.621(10).6 Orders granting reunification in the absence of written findings addressing the best interest factors have been held to constitute a…
-
Department of Children & Families v. Interest of B.D. 102 So. 3d 707 · 1D12-3698 · 1st DCA 2012
· cited by 7 in all courts
Certiorari granted because the court reopened a closed permanent guardianship on the mother's motion without an evidentiary hearing or the findings the statute requires.
…v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 887 So.2d 1253, 1255 (Fla.2004). To support its request for a full evidentiary hearing, the Department cited section 39.621(9), Florida Statutes (2011), which states: The permanency placement is intended to continue until the child reaches the age of majority and may not be…
-
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.
…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 proceedings, because we…
-
T.M.W. v. Department of Children & Families 4D21-0948 · 4th DCA 2021
Permanent guardianship order reversed because the hearing was noticed as a judicial review, not a permanency hearing, denying the mother fair notice and due process.
…A permanency determination in this case, on the other hand, would be governed by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.425 (“Permanency Hearings”), section 39.621, Florida Statutes (2021) (“Permanency determination by the court”), and section 39.6221, Florida Statutes (2021) (“Permanent guardianship of a dependent…
-
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.
…and that it would be in the Child’s best interests to remain in the long-term custody of the Father. The Mother timely appealed both orders. Section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes (2010), provides: The court shall base its decision concerning any motion by a parent for reunification or increased contact with a…
-
M.I. v. Department of Children & Families 45 So. 3d 878 · 4D09-3819 · 4th DCA 2010
· cited by 5 in all courts
Termination affirmed; the court could amend the case plan goal from permanent guardianship to adoption after the father stopped complying and chose incarceration over probation.
…age and developmental needs; (c) The failure of a party to substantially comply with a task in the original case plan.... Additionally, section 39.621, Florida Statutes (2009) addresses the amendment of case plan goals at the permanency hearing: “The purpose of the permanency hearing is to determine ...…
-
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.
…age and understanding to express a preference; (e) The recommendation of the current custodian; and (f) The recommendation of the guardian ad litem § 39.621(10), Fla. Stat. (2006). A finding regarding each of these factors is mandatory and vital to a proper order denying reunification. In particular, the requirement…
-
In re K.M. 946 So. 2d 1214 · 2D06-713 · 2nd DCA 2006
· cited by 3 in all courts
Order giving long-term custody to the grandmother is appealable and was reversed because the court did not apply the nonoffending-parent placement statute or find endangerment.
…§ 39.001(1)(h). When it is determined that reunification with either parent is inappropriate, the court must make a permanency determination for the child. § 39.621(1). When reunification is not an option, adoption is the preferred permanency option. § 39.621(2). However, if adoption is not in the child's best interests, the…
-
N.A. v. Department of Children & Families 267 So. 3d 430 · 4D18-3374 · 4th DCA 2019
· cited by 3 in all courts
Reversed because the court could not place the child permanently with the father and end jurisdiction while ordering the mother to complete a case plan.
…our review is de novo. See State, Dep’t of Children & Families v. B.D., 102 So. 3d 707, 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (statutory interpretation of section 39.621 is reviewed de novo). Applying de novo review, we agree with the mother’s arguments on appeal. We address each argument in turn. 1. After the Circuit…
-
A.S. v. Department of Children & Families 3D17-2019 · 3rd DCA 2017
Certiorari denied; the court could sua sponte enter a stay-away order in a closed permanent guardianship without the notice required for a parent's motion.
…guardian. A.S. complains that the permanent guardianship was reopened without notice, and cites to the provisions of Florida Statute section 39.621(10)1 and Department of Children & Families v. B.D., 102 So. 3d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), 1 Section 39.621(10) reads as follows: The permanency…
-
Guardian ad Litem Program v. A.A. 171 So. 3d 174 · 5D15-966 · 5th DCA 2015
· cited by 16 in all courts
Denial of termination reversed: available relative placement and possible parental contact do not defeat least restrictive means, so termination and adoption were directed.
…unless the court first “determines that reunification or adoption is not in the. best interest of the child.... ” § 39.6221(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). Section 39.621(2)(a)-(e) lists permanency options for dependent children in order of legislative preference. The statute specifies that adoption is the first option to be used…
-
M.M. v. Department of Children & Family Services 170 So. 3d 840 · 3D14-2372 · 3rd DCA 2015
· cited by 1 in all courts
Ending agency supervision upheld, but leaving the father's future contact solely to the children's discretion was quashed as barring his statutory right to seek modification.
…& Families, 1 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Because an order terminating supervision does not necessarily end a dependency proceeding, see §§ 39.521, 39.621, Fla. Stat. (2014); Fla R. Juv. P. 8.345, and based on this court’s conclusion in F.E. that such an order is not appealable, we treat the father’s notice of…
-
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.
…with DCF’s case plan, and the order terminating protective supervision neglects to address the six parental reunification factors set forth in section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes (2009). Several years after divorcing, T.S., the father, wrote a letter to the trial court, expressing concern about L.M., his former…
-
CS v. Department of Children & Families 12 So. 3d 309 · 4D08-3950 · 4th DCA 2009
· cited by 2 in all courts
Denial of reunification reversed because the court found case plan completion but made no written findings on the required statutory factors for denying return.
… In E.I. v. Department of Children and Families, 979 So.2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), we held that a court is obligated to comply with section 39.621(10), requiring the trial court to address and include in the written findings of fact the following six factors: (a) compliance or noncompliance with the…
-
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.
…in custody in active dependency cases. On its motion for clarification, the Department asks this court to clarify its opinion by substituting section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes, as it is the controlling statute in this case as it deals with postclosure motions to reactivate. We agree with the Department's assertion…
-
J.M. v. Department of Children & Families 969 So. 2d 491 · 5D07-2156 · 5th DCA 2007
· cited by 3 in all courts
Denial of the mother's motion to reopen and reunify affirmed because she alleged no facts showing the abusive stepfather was no longer a threat.
… *493 finding that the mother's allegations were legally insufficient. We agree. A long-term relative custody order is considered an order of permanency. § 39.621(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2007). See In re K.M., 946 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Prior to July 1, 2006, section 39.622(4), Florida Statutes, governed a parent's…
-
T.A.S. v. Department of Children & Families 1D2023-1430 · 1st DCA 2024
Denial of the father's motions to vacate a no-contact order after permanent guardianship was reversed because the statute required an evidentiary hearing.
…the parties acknowledge in their filings in this court that at the time of the motions to vacate, the child was in permanent placement. See § 39.621(7), Fla. Stat. (listing permanent guardianship as a permanent placement). Because the motions to vacate were denied without the benefit of an evidentiary…
-
A.M. v. D.S. 1D19-1855 · 1st DCA 2021
Termination and permanent guardianship reversed because a Chapter 63 adoption-related case was decided under Chapter 39 without notice, violating the father's due process.
…that child has been removed and adjudicated dependent through a proceeding under chapter 39, and only after the court has held a permanency hearing. See §§ 39.621–.6231, Fla. Stat. The court can then order permanent guardianship with a suitable relative or other adult, though only after it finds that reunification or…
-
J.B. v. Department of Children & Families 170 So. 3d 780 · SC14-1990 · Florida Supreme Court 2015
· cited by 26 in all courts
Supreme Court held the right to counsel in termination cases includes effective assistance, set a test and interim procedure, and approved denying this mother relief.
…with nonrelatives); 39.402 (shelter and shelter review hearing); 39.506 (arraignment); 39.507 (dependency adjudicatory hearing); 39.521 (disposition); 39.621 (permanency); 39.701(judicial review); 39.808 (advisory and pretrial); 39.809 (termination adjudicatory), Fla. Stat. (2014). The amicus curiae brief…
-
J.B. v. Department of Children & Family Services 130 So. 3d 753 · 2D13-4044 · 2nd DCA 2014
· cited by 6 in all courts
Permanent guardianship reversed because a judicial review hearing was not noticed as a permanency hearing, and the form order lacked evidence and required findings.
…not attend the hearing. More than a year before this hearing this court reversed another judge in the Sixth Circuit when the Department did not obey section 39.621(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2011). See P.P., 86 So.3d 556 . Despite the fact that the father’s appellate counsel cited P.P. in the initial brief, the Department…
-
Fe v. Department of Children & Families 1 So. 3d 305 · 3D08-1930 · 3rd DCA 2009
· cited by 2 in all courts
Denial of all visitation upheld given the abused child's fear of the mother, but language leaving future contact to the father's discretion was struck.
…terminated, and as the order otherwise states, she retains the unqualified ability to seek a modification or elimination of any restrictions under section 39.621(9), Florida Statutes (2008). 2 Certiorari denied; order amended. 1 . "If the Father later feels the child is ready for…
-
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.
…age and understanding to express a preference; (e) The recommendation of the current custodian; and (f) The recommendation of the guardian ad litem. § 39.621(10), Fla. Stat. (2007). A finding regarding each of these factors is mandatory and vital to a proper order denying reunification. See C.D., 974 So.2d at 500…
-
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.
…trial court's finding of detriment to the child was "not based on any specific findings, and therefore, [was] not reasonably objective"). Further, section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes, directs the trial court to consider the following six factors in deciding the parent's motion for reunification: (a) The compliance or…
-
D.R. v. Department of Children & Family Services 963 So. 2d 746 · 3D06-975 · 3rd DCA 2007
…judgments denying her application for adoption of the child and instead permanently placing J.B. with his long-time foster caregivers pursuant to sections 39.621, 39.812, Florida Statutes (2005). After a careful review of the voluminous record and taking into account only those issues which may properly guide our…
-
B.L. v. Department of Children & Families 950 So. 2d 1264 · 5D06-1228 · 5th DCA 2007
· cited by 11 in all courts
Long-term relative placement reversed because the court applied mere case plan completion rather than the statutory substantial compliance standard.
…C.J. B.L. and M.L., parents of L.L., a minor, appeal from an order permanently committing L.L. to the long-term custody of a relative pursuant to sections 39.621, et seq., Florida Statutes. The trial court ordered long-term relative placement of L.L. with the child's maternal aunt and her husband with whom the child…
-
C.M. v. Department of Children & Families 953 So. 2d 547 · 1D05-5351 · 1st DCA 2007
· cited by 13 in all courts
Termination affirmed, but commitment for adoption was remanded so the court can consider the paternal aunt as adoptive placement after her home study.
…of the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act, effective July 1, 2006. See, e.g., Chap. 2006-86, §§ 1 & 19, Laws of Fla. (adding language in §§ 39.01(51) & 39.621(2), Fla. Stat. (2006), redefining "permanency goals" under this chapter and stating a preference for "[r]eunification" followed by, in descending order of…
-
S.C.T.A. v. Department of Children & Families 3D2026-0791 · 3rd DCA 2026
Motions to dismiss denied; the grandmother's appeal of the denial of her adoption review is not moot and she may appeal despite the finalized adoption.
…itself. The statute is therefore inapplicable. In closing, we are mindful of the lauded interest in achieving permanency for I.D.T.M. See §39.621(1), Fla. Stat. (“Time is of the essence for permanency of children in the dependency system.”); S.M. v. Fla. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 202 So. 3d 769, 782–83…
-
E.P. v. Department of Children & Families 1D2024-2901-2 · 1st DCA 2025
Appeal dismissed as moot because the child is now over eighteen and no longer a child under Chapter 39.
…Fla. Stat. (defining “child” and “youth” to mean “any unmarried person under the age of 18 years who has not been emancipated by order of the court”); § 39.621(10), Fla. Stat. (stating that “permanency placement is intended to continue until the child reaches the age of majority”); cf. O.I.C.L. v. Fla. Dep’t of Child. &…
-
Department of Children & Families v. L.W. 3D2023-2245 · 3rd DCA 2024
Denial of termination reversed with directions to terminate; the least-restrictive-means finding lacked support given the mother's twenty-year alcohol abuse and relapses.
…noted that the Fourth District’s interpretation is “more consistent with the Legislature’s permanency goals in dependency cases” set forth in section 39.621(3), Florida Statutes. Id. at 781. The Florida Supreme Court also rejected S.M.’s argument that if there is “‘some other arrangement,’ as opposed to…
-
C.D.F. v. D.R. 2D21-0652 · 2nd DCA 2022
Dismissal of the permanent guardians' Chapter 63 termination petition was reversed because the dependency court's retained jurisdiction did not oust the domestic relations division.
…4th DCA 1977))). And we recognize the domestic relations division's concerns for matters that may need resolution in the juvenile division. See § 39.621(10) ("The permanency placement is intended to continue until the child reaches the age of majority and may not be disturbed absent a finding by the court that…
-
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.
…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 hearing where…
-
A.R. v. Department of Children & Families 239 So. 3d 1266 · 2D17-2815 · 2nd DCA 2018
Order placing children in permanent guardianship and custody quashed because the mother lacked notice of the goal change and an opportunity to present evidence.
…with the Department's case -2- plan at least seventy-two hours before the hearing on court's approval); § 39.621(3)(a) ("At least 3 business days before the permanency hearing, the [D]epartment shall file its judicial review social services report with the court and serve…
-
S.C.P. v. Department of Children & Families 220 So. 3d 1290 · 3D17-0979 · 3rd DCA 2017
· cited by 1 in all courts
Order changing the goal from reunification to permanent guardianship quashed on DCF's concession that there was no evidentiary basis and the mother was compliant.
…eventually reuniting with her children. The governing rules and statutes contemplate an evidentiary basis to support a case plan amendment. See § 39.621, Fla. Stat. (2016); R.N. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 25 So. 3d 697, 700 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (“Rule 8.420 contemplates an evidentiary basis to support a…
-
Guardian ad Litem Program v. Department of Children & Families 207 So. 3d 1000 · 5D16-3380 · 5th DCA 2016
· cited by 2 in all courts
Denial of termination reversed with directions to terminate both parents; mother's repeated case plan failures satisfied least restrictive means.
…Doing so under the circumstances of this case prioritized tenuous parental contact over the children’s right to permanency, in direct conflict with section 39.621. Id. at 178 . Accordingly, our court reversed and remanded “for entry of an amended final judgment terminating Mother and Father’s parental rights that…
-
R.J. v. Department of Children & Families 187 So. 3d 362 · 4D15-4026 · 4th DCA 2016
· cited by 1 in all courts
After a private dependency petition by a teen, court wrongly thought it could not place him in DCF custody; reversed and remanded for reconsideration.
…of the Florida Statues provides that “[a] child who is living in licensed care on his or her 18th birthday and who has not achieved permanency under s. 39.621 is eligible to remain in licensed care under the jurisdiction of the court and in the care of the department” so long as he or she is under twenty-one and…
-
Department of Children & Families v. J.S. 183 So. 3d 1177 · 4D15-2272 · 4th DCA 2016
· cited by 5 in all courts
Denial of termination reversed: the incarcerated father's lengthy sentence and absent relationship met the incarceration ground, so termination of both parents was directed.
…of Children & Families, 20 So. 3d 408, 409-10 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (reversing and remanding for trial court to consider and address all six factors of section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes, which “mandates that [the] six factors ‘be considered and addressed in the findings of fact of the order on the motion [by a parent for…
-
A.H. v. Department of Children & Families 144 So. 3d 662 · 1D14-656 · 1st DCA 2014
· cited by 11 in all courts
Termination reversed on DCF's concession it was not the least restrictive means; the child thrived in a permanent guardianship and the mother posed no harm.
…the child’s preference if the child is able to express one, the custodian’s recommendation, and the guardian ad litem’s recommendation. Id.) see also § 39.621(9)-(10), Fla. Stat. (2013). In the present case, the record shows that the trial court has created a permanent guardianship for the child and there is no…
-
A.M. v. Department of Children & Families 118 So. 3d 998 · 1D13-618 · 1st DCA 2013
· cited by 1 in all courts
Judicial review order affirmed because the record showed no motion for reunification and the mother did not preserve claimed deficiencies in statutory findings.
…required “demonstrat[ion] that the safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health of the child[ren are] not endangered by the modification.” § 39.621(9), Fla. Stat. Finally, if statutory deficiencies existed in the trial court’s order, Appellant needed to preserve these issues “by a motion for rehearing or ...…
-
Department of Children & Families v. W.H. 109 So. 3d 1269 · 1D13-733 · 1st DCA 2013
· cited by 7 in all courts
Certiorari granted and reunification order quashed because the department had no notice or hearing and the court omitted required statutory findings.
… 974 So.2d 495, 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The court is also required to make written factual findings as to the six statutory factors contained in section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes. Id. In this case, the trial court made a finding only as to the parents’ compliance with the case plan. The court failed to address…
-
B.R. v. Department of Children & Families 106 So. 3d 512 · 5D12-4144 · 5th DCA 2013
Permanent guardianship order reversed on concession because the department did not serve the required social services report before the permanency hearing.
…B.R., appeals from an order placing his child, N.R., in permanent guardianship. Based upon the State’s proper concession of error, we reverse. Section 39.621(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), requires the Department to file and serve, at least three business days before the permanency hearing, a judicial review social…
-
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.
…an order in which it listed the tasks the Mother was to complete but found she was not in compliance. The court went through the other factors in section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes (2011), which it is required to consider in deciding a parent’s motion for reunification and crossed out the last finding listed, “[t]he…
-
A.H. v. Department of Children & Family Services 85 So. 3d 1213 · 1D11-4454 · 1st DCA 2012
· cited by 5 in all courts
Termination reversed because none of the five grounds was proven; the father did not knowingly fail to protect his son from the mother's abuse.
…and filed an expedited petition for termination of her parental rights. 1 (“Time is of the essence for permanency of children in the dependency system.” § 39.621(1), Fla. Stat. (2009).) But the Department’s case plan for appellant A.H. originally had as its primary goal his reunification with his daughters. Nine months…
-
Interest of K.M. v. Department of Children & Family Services 86 So. 3d 556 · 2D11-5767 · 2nd DCA 2012
· cited by 11 in all courts
Permanent guardianship order reversed because the mother lacked proper notice of a permanency hearing and no evidentiary hearing was held.
…the matter before the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. We do not agree that the State properly noticed the mother for the permanency hearing. Section 39.621(3)(a) states: At least 3 business days before the permanency hearing, the department shall file its judicial review social services report with the court and…
-
DT v. Department of Children & Families 54 So. 3d 632 · 1D10-5313 · 1st DCA 2011
· cited by 11 in all courts
Denial of reunification affirmed; evidence supported detriment finding and the mother failed to preserve her claim of missing statutory findings by seeking rehearing.
…reunification with her minor child, N.N. She argues that the case must be remanded, because the trial court failed to make the required findings under section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes and because there was no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the court’s conclusion that reunification would be…
-
C.T. v. Department of Children & Families 22 So. 3d 852 · 3D09-1526 · 3rd DCA 2009
· cited by 4 in all courts
Termination affirmed; egregious abuse of siblings is a ground but not automatic, and the court's best-interest and least-restrictive findings made the error harmless.
…abuse or by abandonment. The judgment goes on to say that “there are no less restrictive means legally avail *855 able to establish permanency under section 39.621, Florida Statutes, other than termination of parental rights for the adoptive placement.” This analysis appropriately supports the termination judgment. In…
-
S.P. v. Department of Children & Family Services 17 So. 3d 878 · 1D09-1453 · 1st DCA 2009
· cited by 6 in all courts
Appeal of a non-final order denying reunification was treated as certiorari and denied; without a transcript the father showed no inadequate findings.
…visitation, and did not rule out eventual reunification. S.P.’s strongest argument concerns the adequacy of the findings of fact in the order: Section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes (2008), delineates certain factual findings that must be made in orders addressing motions for reunification. See generally C.D. v. Dep’t…
-
T.R. v. Department of Children & Families 13 So. 3d 140 · 5D08-4229 · 5th DCA 2009
…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.
-
Department of Children & Families v. in the Interest of C.W. 14 So. 3d 1041 · 1D09-0025 · 1st DCA 2009
Denial of termination affirmed on remand; the court properly weighed best-interest factors, favoring the child's bond with his grandmother, without violating law of the case.
…would be preferable because of the “significant and deep relationship between the child and [his grandmother].” Reviewing the options available in section 39.621(2), 1 the court determined that the goal of the case plan should be changed to placement with a fit and willing relative. On appeal, DCF…
-
In re T.F. 8 So. 3d 474 · 2D08-1291 · 2nd DCA 2009
Reversed because the court changed the goal to adoption without a termination petition, rendering the mother's consent to dependency unknowing; new arraignment or hearing required.
…the child is reversed on appeal, her current appeal would be relevant. Therefore, this issue is not moot, and we consider the appeal on the merits. Section 39.621(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), allows adoption as a permanency goal option only "if a petition for termination of parental rights has been or will be filed." Here,…
-
M.M. v. Department of Children & Family Services 987 So. 2d 1267 · 1D07-6527 · 1st DCA 2008
Termination affirmed; availability of a nonadoptive relative placement cannot weigh against termination, and the great-grandmother may still seek to adopt.
…parental rights were terminated earlier, the “child will not be reunited with a parent, [and] adoption, under chapter 63, is the primary permanency option.” § 39.621(6), Fla. Stat. (2006). As the Department of Children and Family Services acknowledges, “the trial court here has not precluded the paternal great grandmother…
-
M.H. v. Department of Children & Family Services 18 So. 3d 1068 · 2D08-346 · 2nd DCA 2008
Appellate order directing regional counsel to hire and pay a court reporter to transcribe the recording for a termination appeal.
…2d DCA 2007). This time the dispute affects both the constitutional rights of the mother and the permanency of six children in the dependency system. See § 39.621, Fla. Stat. (2007) (“Time is of the essence for children in the dependency system.”). The administrative order of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, which was…
-
In re J.D. 972 So. 2d 290 · 2D07-89 · 2nd DCA 2008
· cited by 1 in all courts
Order leaving the child with the mother and ending supervision affirmed; it did not terminate the incarcerated father's rights, and he may later seek reunification.
…to point out that the Father, who is incarcerated, is mistaken in concluding that the trial court's order essentially terminates his parental rights. See § 39.621(9), Fla. Stat. (2006) ("The permanency placement is intended to continue until the child reaches the age of majority. . . . [However, i]f a parent who has not…
-
A.W. v. Department of Children & Families 969 So. 2d 496 · 1D07-1724 · 1st DCA 2007
· cited by 12 in all courts
Termination affirmed because the developmentally disabled mother's technical case plan compliance did not remedy unsafe conditions or show parenting ability; limited post-termination letters were upheld.
…achieving a safe and permanent home expeditiously for children is a primary purpose of Chapter 39. See *505 §§ 39.001(1)(h), 39.013(5), 39.402(14)(e) & 39.621(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). "[A]s between the parent and the child the ultimate welfare of the child itself must be controlling." State ex rel. Sparks v. Reeves, …
-
G.S. v. T.B. 969 So. 2d 1049 · 1D06-5264 · 1st DCA 2007
· cited by 3 in all courts
…life[.]” § 63.022(3), Fla. Stat. (2006). Further, in the context of a child’s placement in the dependency system, adoption is preferable to guardianship. § 39.621(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). The order here granting a mixed guardianship is even more troubling because it ensures judicial entanglement in the children’s lives…
-
L.R. v. J.F. 960 So. 2d 836 · 4D06-4003 · 4th DCA 2007
Custody order reversed because the mother had a right to appointed counsel in the retained dependency case and the child should have testified.
…the age of majority. See § 39.013, Fla. Stat. (2006). The trial court elected to retain jurisdiction over T.F. In 2006, the legislature added section 39.621(9). It provides: (9) The permanency placement is intended to continue until the child reaches the age of majority and may not be disturbed absent a finding by…
-
L.R. v. J.F. 960 So. 2d 836 · 4D4B06-4003 · 4th DCA 2007
· cited by 1 in all courts
Custody order reversed because the mother had a right to appointed counsel in the retained dependency case and the child should have testified.
…the age of majority. See § 39.013, Fla. Stat. (2006). The trial court elected to retain jurisdiction over T.F. In 2006, the legislature added section 39.621(9). It provides: (9) The permanency placement is intended to continue until the child reaches the age of majority and may not be disturbed absent a finding by…
-
Department of Children & Families v. In the Interest of J.F. 959 So. 2d 1247 · 4D06-4896 · 4th DCA 2007
· cited by 1 in all courts
Permanency review order reversed: the court lacked required findings for permanent guardianship, did not amend the case plan, and placed with a non-relative too soon.
…remand for the trial court to provide findings as to why the permanent placement is established without adoption of the child to follow pursuant to section 39.621(6), Florida Statutes (2006); amend the judicial review order to be in compliance with section 39.6221(2), Florida Statutes (2006); amend the judicial review…
-
In re J.T. 947 So. 2d 1212 · 2D06-1523 · 2nd DCA 2007
· cited by 5 in all courts
Appeals from order letting an adoption agency intervene and transferring the case were treated as certiorari and denied; the dependency court keeps jurisdiction.
…Legislature *1219 has also decreed that "[i]f a child will not be reunited with a parent, adoption, under chapter 63, is the primary permanency option." § 39.621(6) (emphasis added). Ultimately, if the adoption does not proceed pursuant to chapter 63, section 39.812(5) specifically provides that the "petition for adoption…
-
B.B. v. P.J.M. 933 So. 2d 57 · 1D05-0510 · 1st DCA 2006
· cited by 3 in all courts
Adoption by grandparents reversed over a dissent: the unmarried father was established as the father through the dependency proceeding, so his consent was required.
…a permanency determination, such as a chapter 63 adoption, the dependency court must determine reunification with either parent is inappropriate. See § 39.621(1), Fla. Stat. Clearly, the identity of a child's father is material in a dependency proceeding. Material Facts Are Established By Court Proceedings …
-
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.
…that the mother was unfit. Second, it appears that "permanency status" with the stepfather is not available for N.R. under the statutory scheme. Section 39.621 provides: (1) When the court has determined that reunification with either parent is not appropriate, then the court must make a permanency determination…
-
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure - 2018 Fast-Track Report 249 So. 3d 1175 · SC18-1047 · Florida Supreme Court 2018
…§§ 1-2, Laws of Fla. (creating § 39.6021(1), (5), Fla. Stat. effective July 1, 2018); ch. 2018-103, §§ 7-8, 9, 12, 33, Laws of Fla. (amending §§ 39.6013, 39.621(5), 39.6221(1), 39.701(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2017) effective July 1, 2018); ch. 2018-108, §§ 2, 7, Laws of Fla. (amending § 39.402(11)(c), Fla. Stat. (2017)…
-
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure - 2019 Fast-Track Report SC19-1818 · Florida Supreme Court 2020
…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 proposals and the relevant legislation, we…
No opinion cites this provision by number.
3 admin code rules cite § 39.621
DCF's rules in Chapter 65C, Florida Administrative Code, that cite it or name it as the law they implement.
- Rule 65C-16.003 Case Reviews. Implements
- Rule 65C-30.001 Definitions. (80)(81)cites (4)
- Rule 65C-30.012 Permanency Goal Selection. Implements(1)cites (2)
No admin code rule 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) Time is of the essence for permanency of children in the dependency system. A permanency hearing must be held no later than 12 months after the date the child was removed from the home or within 30 days after a court determines that reasonable efforts to return a child to either parent are not required, whichever occurs first. The purpose of the permanency hearing is to determine when the child will achieve the permanency goal or whether modifying the current goal is in the best interest of the child. A permanency hearing must be held at least every 12 months for any child who continues to be supervised by the department or awaits adoption.
(2) The permanency goal of maintaining and strengthening the placement with a parent may be used in all of the following circumstances:
(a) If a child has not been removed from a parent, even if adjudication of dependency is withheld, the court may leave the child in the current placement with maintaining and strengthening the placement as a permanency option.
(b) If a child has been removed from a parent and is placed with the parent from whom the child was not removed, the court may leave the child in the placement with the parent from whom the child was not removed with maintaining and strengthening the placement as a permanency option.
(c) If a child has been removed from a parent and is subsequently reunified with that parent, the court may leave the child with that parent with maintaining and strengthening the placement as a permanency option.
(3) The permanency goals available under this chapter, listed in order of preference, are:
(a) Reunification;
(b) Adoption, if a petition for termination of parental rights has been or will be filed;
(c) Permanent guardianship of a dependent child under s. 39.6221;
(d) Permanent placement with a fit and willing relative under s. 39.6231; or
(e) Placement in another planned permanent living arrangement under s. 39.6241.
(4)(a) At least 3 business days before the permanency hearing, the department shall file its judicial review social services report with the court and serve copies of the report on all parties. The report must include a recommended permanency goal for the child, suggest changes to the case plan, if needed, and describe why the recommended goal is in the best interest of the child.
(b) Before the permanency hearing, the department shall advise the child and the individuals with whom the child will be placed about the availability of more permanent and legally secure placements and what type of financial assistance is associated with each placement.
(5) At the permanency hearing, the court shall determine:
(a) Whether the current permanency goal for the child is appropriate or should be changed;
(b) When the child will achieve one of the permanency goals;
(c) Whether the department has made reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan currently in effect; and
(d) Whether the frequency, duration, manner, and level of engagement of the parent or legal guardian’s visitation with the child meets the case plan requirements.
(6) The best interest of the child is the primary consideration in determining the permanency goal for the child. The court must also consider:
(a) The reasonable preference of the child if the court has found the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference; and
(b) Any recommendation of the guardian ad litem.
(7) If a child will not be reunited with a parent, adoption, under chapter 63, is the primary permanency option. If the child is placed with a relative or with a relative of the child’s half brother or half sister as a permanency option, the court may recognize the permanency of this placement without requiring the relative to adopt the child. If the court approves a permanency goal of permanent guardianship of a dependent child, placement with a fit and willing relative, or another planned permanent living arrangement, the court shall make findings as to why this permanent placement is established without adoption of the child to follow. If the court approves a permanency goal of another planned permanent living arrangement, the court shall document the compelling reasons for choosing this goal.
(8) The findings of the court regarding reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan must be explicitly documented, made on a case-by-case basis, and stated in the court order.
(9) The case plan must list the tasks necessary to finalize the permanency placement and shall be updated at the permanency hearing if necessary. If a concurrent case plan is in place, the court may choose between the permanency goal options presented and shall approve the goal that is in the child’s best interest.
(10) The permanency placement is intended to continue until the child reaches the age of majority and may not be disturbed absent a finding by the court that the circumstances of the permanency placement are no longer in the best interest of the child.
(a) If, after a child is residing in the permanent placement approved at the permanency hearing, a parent who has not had his or her parental rights terminated makes a motion for reunification or increased contact with the child, the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the dependency case should be reopened and whether there should be a modification of the order.
(b) At the hearing, the parent must demonstrate that the safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health of the child is not endangered by the modification.
(c) The court shall base its decision concerning any motion by a parent for reunification or increased contact with a child on the effect of the decision on the safety, well-being, and physical and emotional health of the child. Factors that must be considered and addressed in the findings of fact of the order on the motion must include:
1. The compliance or noncompliance of the parent with the case plan;
2. The circumstances which caused the child’s dependency and whether those circumstances have been resolved;
3. The stability and longevity of the child’s placement;
4. The preferences of the child, if the child is of sufficient age and understanding to express a preference;
5. The recommendation of the current custodian; and
6. Any recommendation of the guardian ad litem.
(11) Placement of a child in a permanent guardianship, with a fit and willing relative, or in another planned permanent living arrangement does not terminate the parent-child relationship, including, but not limited to:
(a) The right of the child to inherit from his or her parents;
(b) The parents’ right to consent to the child’s adoption; or
(c) The parents’ responsibility to provide financial, medical, and other support for the child as ordered by the court.
History. s. 28, ch. 2000-139; s. 19, ch. 2006-86; s. 12, ch. 2012-178; s. 18, ch. 2017-151; s. 8, ch. 2018-103; s. 10, ch. 2019-128; s. 22, ch. 2024-70.