V.P. AS FATHER OF T.P., A CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, RESPONDENT
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 court affirmed an order awarding supplemental benefits to an employee who suffered a work-related permanent total disability, rejecting the employer's contention that benefits should be capped at the employee's average weekly wage at the time of the accident.
The court held that supplemental benefits are calculated to increase annually and are not capped at the employee's average weekly wage at the time of the accident, affirming the award of benefits.
[1] A court must determine if a parent with whom the child was not residing desires custody and, if so, must place the child with that parent unless placement would endanger…
[2] A court must conduct a hearing to determine a non-custodial parent's suitability for temporary custody when the child is removed from the other parent's care due to abuse…
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 intelligenceAn employee suffered a work-related permanent total disability in 1987 and received basic and supplemental benefits. The employer, as successor to her…
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 T.P. who was the subject of a dependency petition alleging abuse and neglect by her mother and stepfather. No allegations of abuse or neglect were lodged against T.P.’s natural father, V.P., who as non-custodial parent resides in Illinois. V.P. sought below to have T.P. temporarily placed with him, but the juvenile court instead placed T.P. in the custody of a non-relative. The court made no finding which would indicate why V.P., as natural father, would not be entitled to temporary custody of T.P. V.P. petitions for habeas corpus relief. We treat the petition as an expedited appeal from the placement order1 and remand.
Section 39.508(8), Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part:
... 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 child 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.
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 physical, mental, or emotional health of the child, the court should order temporary placement of T.P. with the natural father. REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
COBB, PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ. concur. . See § 39.510(1), Fla. Stat. See also Fla. R.App. P. 9.040(c).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re The Interest of J.R. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 745 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)