IN THE INTEREST OF J.D., A CHILD. G.P., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Child Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
G.P. (the Father), pro se, challenges the trial court’s order which (1) directed that his son, J.D., remain in the custody of the mother; (2) terminated the Department of Children and Family Services’ supervision; and (3) retained jurisdiction. We affirm but write only to point out that the Father, who is incarcerated, is mistaken in concluding that the trial court’s order essentially terminates his parental rights. See § 39.621(9), Fla. Stat. (2006) (“The permanency placement is intended to continue until the child reaches the age of majority.... [However, i]f a parent who has not had his or her parental rights terminated makes a motion for reunification or increased contact with the child, the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the dependency case should be reopened and whether there should be a modification of the order.”).
Affirmed.
VTLLANTI and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mohamed S. Rashid v. Shanta Rashid, 35 So. 3d 992 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…nces” exist to justify the award. Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So. 2d 1153, 1154-55 (Fla.1989). “ ‘Appropriate circumstances’ may include the dire impact that the sudden death of the obligated party would have on the receiving party.” Duffey v. Duffey, 972 So. 2d 290, 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). In ordering this protection, the court should consider the “availability and cost of such insurance and the financial impact it will have on the former husband.” Lorman v. Lorman, 633 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); see…
-
Irene Banks v. Randy Banks, 168 So. 3d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…ests an award of life insurance as security for the payment of alimony and the trial court fails to address that request, the appropriate relief would be to reverse and remand for the trial court to make the necessary findings. See Duffey v. Duffey, 972 So. 2d 290, 292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). In this case, we conclude that such relief is not available. The Wife’s operative pretrial memorandum filed with the trial court identified four issues to be resolved at the final evidentiary hearing: (1) alimony; (2) marit…
-
Janett Maxine Smith v. Smith, 338 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…he trial court failed to acknowledge the plea in the Amended Final Judgment. This omission was error, and remand is required for the court to address whether the former husband must secure any alimony award with life insurance. See Duffey v. Duffey, 972 So. 2d 290, 292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). IV. To summarize, we reverse the Amended Final Judgment to the extent it (1) lacks the necessary findings of fact concerning the award of alimony and the equitable distribution of the parties’ assets and (2) fails to addres…