IN THE INTEREST OF B.H., C.H., AND J.H. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
A.H., 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 Department of Children and Family Services appealed an order directing reunification of a mother with her children, claiming lack of notice that reunification would be addressed at the judicial review hearing. The Florida appellate court found DCF had adequate notice but reversed and remanded for entry of a written order with proper findings to support the reunification decision.
DCF had adequate notice that reunification could be addressed at the judicial review hearing. The trial court was authorized to order reunification under Florida law. However, the reunification order must be supported by a written order containing findings of fact as required by statute and court rules.
[1] A judicial review hearing notice stating that the court will decide whether to return a child to a parent is sufficient notice that reunification may be addressed at the…
[2] A trial court is authorized to order reunification of a child with a parent at a judicial review hearing.
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 JUDICIAL REVIEW HEARING IS VERY IMPORTANT. AT THE JUDICIAL REVIEW THE COURT WILL DECIDE WHETHER TO RETURN YOUR CHILD TO YOU OR OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS, LEAVE YOUR CHILD WITH THE CURRENT CUSTODIAN, OR START PROCEEDINGS TO CONSIDER ADOPTION FOR YOUR CHILDREN.”
Establishes that DCF had notice that reunification was a possible outcome at the judicial review hearing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA judicial review hearing was held regarding the custody of three children in DCF's care. The notice of hearing explicitly stated in capital letters 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.
WHATLEY, Acting Chief Judge.
The Department of Children and Family Services (DCF) appeals the order denying its motion for rehearing of the order directing reunification of the mother and her children. DCF contends that it did not receive notice that the mother was going to seek reunification at the judicial review hearing. It therefore requests reversal and remand for a hearing on reunification with advance notice to all interested parties. We conclude that DCF did have notice that reunification could be addressed at the hearing, but we reverse and remand for entry of a written order containing findings in support of the reunification directed by the trial court.
The notice of the judicial review hearing contains the following statement in capital letters on the first page:
THE JUDICIAL REVIEW HEARING IS VERY IMPORTANT. AT THE JUDICIAL REVIEW THE COURT WILL DECIDE WHETHER TO RETURN YOUR CHILD TO YOU OR OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS, LEAVE YOUR CHILD WITH THE CURRENT CUSTODIAN, OR START PROCEEDINGS TO CONSIDER ADOPTION FOR YOUR CHILDREN.
Section 39.701(5), Florida Statutes (1999), provides that notice of a judicial review hearing must be served by the clerk of court upon, inter alia, the social service agency and the parents unless they were at the previous hearing at which the date, time, and location of the hearing were announced. DCF has not argued here or at the judicial review hearing that it did not receive notice of that hearing. In fact, at the judicial review hearing, DCF stated that although it desired reunification of the mother and children, it felt that the mother was not ready for reunification at that time. Thus, DCF’s argument that it was not notified that reunification might be sought, and granted at the hearing is without merit. This is especially true in light of section 39.701(8)(a), which provides in pertinent part that at a judicial review hearing:
[T]he court shall determine whether or not the social service agency shall ... return the child to the parent.... If the court finds that the ... reunification efforts of the department will allow the child to ... be safely returned to the home, the court shall allow the child to ... return to the home after making a specific finding of fact that the reasons for the creation of the case plan have been remedied to the extent that the child’s safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health will not be endangered.
See also Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.415(e)(2).
Thus, the trial court was authorized to order reunification at the judicial review hearing. However, that order must be in accordance with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.415(e)(7), which provides that “[t]he court shall enter a written order upon the conclusion of the review hearing including a statement of the facts, those findings it was directed to determine by law, and a determination of the future course of the proceedings.” Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of a written order in conformance with section 39.701(8)(a) and rule 8.415(e)(7).
Reversed and remanded.
STRINGER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.