IN RE THE INTEREST OF J.R., T.R., AND V.R. P.R., APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a shelter placement order for three children in a dependency case, holding that the trial court failed to comply with statutory requirements by not conducting a hearing on the natural father's request for temporary custody before removing the children from his care.
The trial court was required to conduct a hearing to determine the natural father's suitability under the statute. Absent a finding that placement with the father would endanger the children's safety, well-being, or physical, mental, or emotional health, the father must be given an opportunity to accept custody or designate a surrogate caregiver subject to court approval.
[1] When a child is removed from the custody of a parent due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment, the court must first determine if a parent with whom the child was not residin…
[2] If a parent not residing with the child at the time of the events requests custody, the court shall place the child with that parent unless it finds that such placement w…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the court shall first determine whether there is a parent with whom the child was not residing at the time the events or conditions arose that brought the child within the jurisdiction of the court who desires to assume custody of the chid and, if such parent requests custody, the court shall place the child with the parent unless it finds that such placement would endanger the safety, well-being, or physical, mental, or emotional health of the child”
Statutory requirement from section 39.508(8) that mandates courts place children with non-residing parents requesting custody absent specific findings of endangerment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThree children were allegedly abused by their mother and stepfather with whom they resided. The Department of Children and Families filed a Detention …
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 Temporary Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case concerns the temporary custody of three children who were allegedly abused by their mother and stepfather, with whom they were residing. On November 1, 1999, the Department of Children and Families filed a Detention Petition alleging the children had been abandoned, abused, neglected, or suffered injury or illness, including alleged sexual battery by the stepfather and physical abuse by the mother. At the detention hearing the natural father, Pablo Rodriguez, requested custody of the minor children.1 Without making any of the findings required by section 39.508, Florida Statutes, however, the court placed the children in a shelter. Section 39.508(8), Florida Statutes (1999), requires that when a child is removed for the custody of a parent:
the court shall first determine whether there is a parent with whom the child was not residing at the time the events or conditions arose that brought the child within the jurisdiction of the court who desires to assume custody of the chid and, if such parent requests custody, the court shall place the child with the parent unless it finds that such placement would endanger the safety, well-being, or physical, mental, or emotional health of the child.
We conclude that at the very least, the court should have conducted a hearing to determine Mr. Rodriguez’ suitability under the statute. Since the father had both a natural and statutory right to at least have temporary custody of the children, reversal is required. On remand, absent a finding that placement with the father would endanger the safety, well-being, or physical, mental, or emotional health of the children, the father may accept the children outright if he has made suitable ar rangements to rear and care for the children at his own home or in lieu thereof, he should be able to designate a surrogate caregiver, subject to the court’s approval. The court will, of course, be in a position to attach additional conditions to this arrangement. We emphasize that our decision today is only temporary in nature. Complying with the strictures as set out in Chapter 39, the Juvenile Court will be in position to make contrary orders as appropriate and fitting to the circumstances of the case as they evolve before him.
Reversed and remanded.
. The father expressed the desire to have custody of the children but apparently due to his work had suggested the children go to their maternal grandmother. The trial judge had rejected this solution after concluding that such a placement would open the children to "coaching” by the grandmother.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
V.P. As Father of T.P. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 746 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…ll-being, or physical, mental, or emotional health of the child. The trial court apparently did not comply with the dictates of this subsection. Therefore, we order, in accordance with In re J.R.; P.R. v. Florida, Department of Children & Families, 745 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), that the juvenile court conduct an expedited hearing to determine V.P.’s suitability under the statute. Absent evidence and a corresponding finding that temporary placement with V.P. would endanger the safety, well-being, or phys…