P.R., THE MOTHER, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2006-08-23
No. 4D05-4834
STEVENSON, C.J., STONE, J., and BATEMAN, III, THOMAS HOWELL, Associate Judge, concur.
936 So. 2d 754 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2006) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

P.R., the mother, appeals the trial court’s order terminating protective supervision and placing her child in the long-term custody of relatives. We agree that the trial court failed to comply with certain statutory requirements in making its de termination. The trial court may not order long-term custody unless DCF has submitted a case plan that “describe[s] the responsibilities of the relative” and “does not include reunification with the parents.” See § 39.622(l)-(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). Further, pursuant to section 39.601(9)(f), when the trial court amends a case plan, “[a] copy of the amended plan must be immediately given” to the child’s parents. Lastly, section 39.521(3)(d) requires that “[t]he order terminating supervision by the department shall set forth the powers of the custodian.... ” None of these requirements were met in the instant case. We therefore reverse the order on appeal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and Remanded.

STEVENSON, C.J., STONE, J., and BATEMAN, III, THOMAS HOWELL, Associate Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • P.R. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 937 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
    …PER CURIAM. Based on appellee’s concession of error, we reverse the order on long term custody and terminating protective supervision for the reasons indicated in P.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 936 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). WARNER, GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.…
  • C.W. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 944 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
    …d case plan describing the custodian’s responsibilities and did not provide a copy of the amended case plan to the parents, this court must reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings. See P.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 936 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Upon remand, the trial court shall require the parties to satisfy section 39.622(4)’s requirement that each party agree that a long-term custodial relationship does not preclude the possibility of returning the child to the cus…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw