ROSAURA HERNANDEZ AND RAMON JIMENEZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE 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.
Trial court properly exercised discretion under Florida law to continue dependent children in foster care under a permanent placement plan rather than order reunification services, and this decision was not an abuse of discretion.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion by continuing dependent children in foster care under a permanent placement plan instead of ordering a performance agreement with reunification as the goal, when such decision is supported by findings in the best interests of the children.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by continuing dependent children in foster care under a permanent placement plan rather than ordering reunification services w…
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 intelligenceThe trial court denied petitions to terminate the appellants' parental rights to their previously-declared-dependent minor children and chose to conti…
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 Permanent Placement Plan cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
After denying petitions to terminate the appellants’ parental rights to their previously-declared-dependent minor children, the trial court exercised the option, upon carefully considered and stated findings, to “continue] the child[ren] in foster care under a ... permanent placement plan,” § 39.-468(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993), rather than, as the parents now demand, ordering a performance agreement with a goal of reunification. We find no error or abuse of discretion in this determination, which is expressly contemplated by the statute,1 and which was plainly entered, as required, in the best interests of the children. See Belflower v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 578 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
Affirmed.
. Section 39.468 provides in its entirety:
39.468 Orders of adjudication.—
(1) If the court finds that all of the elements of s. 39.467(3) have been met, the court shall enter a written order to that effect and shall thereafter have full authority under this chapter to provide for the child who is the subject of the adjudication for termination of parental rights.
(2) If the court finds that all of the elements of s. 39.467(3) have not been met, the court shall:
(a) Enter an order placing or continuing the child in foster care under a performance agreement or permanent placement plan; or (b) Enter an order returning the child to the natural parent or parents with or without protective supervision and other required services or program participation by the parent.
(3)The court shall enter an order of adjudication briefly stating the facts upon which its finding is made.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Belflower v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 578 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)