WILLIAM M. WADE, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of visitation rights between an imprisoned father and his dependent child in HRS custody, holding that administrative rules requiring monthly family visitation must be applied equally to both parents absent a judicial hearing and finding of legal cause to deny visitation.
A dependent child in HRS custody is entitled to monthly visitation with an imprisoned parent unless a judicial hearing produces a competent, substantial evidence-based order finding legal cause to deny such visitation.
[1] An administrative rule requiring minimum monthly visitation between children in state custody and family members must be applied equally to both parents, and visitation m…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A child's "family" includes both parents. Until after a judicial hearing complying with all due process protection requirements and a final judicial order based on competent substantial evidence finding that for some legally sufficient reason the parent is not entitled to visitation with the child in the custody of HRS, each such child and each such parent is entitled to such visitation.”
Court's statement of the legal standard for denying parental visitation rights to children in HRS custody.
While both parents were imprisoned, their dependent child was placed in temporary protective foster care under HRS custody. The juvenile judge ruled t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Parental Visitation Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
While a dependent child’s parents were in prison and the child was in the temporary protective foster care, custody, and control of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services of the State of Florida, the juvenile judge ruled that “HRS does not have to enter into a Performance Agreement or provide visitation with the father, William M. Wade.” We reverse that portion of this order holding that HRS does not have to provide visitation for the dependent child in the custody of HRS to the imprisoned father. The administrative rule adopted by HRS requires a minimum of one monthly visitation between the child in custody and the family. See Fla.Admin. Code Rule 10M-6.07(l)(c). Under law this rule must be applied equally and with an even hand. A child’s “family” includes both parents. Until after a judicial hearing complying with all due process protection requirements and a final judicial order based on competent substantial evidence finding that for some legally sufficient reason the parent is not entitled to visitation with the child in the custody of HRS, each such child and each such parent is entitled to such visitation.
In this case HRS shall forthwith provide such visitation so long as HRS has either actual custody of the dependent child or has supervisory jurisdiction over the mother or any other person having actual custody.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
COBB, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur.