IN THE INTEREST OF T.B. AND T.P., CHILDREN. M.P., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, 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.
Mother appeals a dependency order finding her children dependent as to the father who consented to dependency. The trial court granted the mother custody with protective supervision but gave DCF rights to temporary physical custody and imposed contradictory conditions regarding grandparent visitation. The appellate court reversed portions of the order regarding DCF's custody rights and the contradictory grandparent visitation provisions.
The court reversed the portion of the order granting DCF the right to temporary physical custody because legal custody was granted to the mother, who must exercise all rights and duties personally unless otherwise ordered. The court also reversed and remanded the portions regarding maternal grandparent contact to clarify the contradictory directives about unsupervised visits and transporting children to visit the father.
[1] A court order granting legal custody of children to a parent is contradicted by language giving a department the right to have temporary physical custody of those childre…
[2] A trial court must clarify contradictory directives within a dependency order regarding a child's contact with maternal grandparents.
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“An agency granted legal custody shall have the right to determine where and with whom the child shall live, but an individual granted legal custody shall exercise all rights and duties personally unless otherwise ordered by the court.”
Establishes that legal custody in an individual vests all rights and duties in that person, preventing DCF from having temporary physical custody rights when the mother was granted legal custody.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a visit at the maternal great-grandparents' home, the father pushed the mother, causing her to fall on child T.B., who struck his head on a woo…
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 Legal Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
M.P., the Mother, appeals an order finding that two of her children are dependent as to the father, who had consented to the dependency. The order withheld adjudication of dependency and accepted a case plan for the children. In the dependency order, the trial court found that it was in the best interest of the children to remain in the custody of the Mother under protective supervision.1 We reverse only those portions of the dependency order which give the Department of Children and Family Services (hereinafter “DCF”) the right to share temporary physical custody of the children and which pertain to the maternal grandparents.
DCF filed the petition for adjudication of dependency alleging that during a visit with the children, the father pushed the Mother while at the home of the maternal great-grandparents. The Mother fell on the child, T.B., who was knocked down and struck his head on a wooden table. Both the Mother and child suffered minor injuries as a result of the incident. When family members asked the father to leave, he retrieved a gun from his vehicle, pointed the gun at the maternal uncle’s chest, and waved the gun at other family members standing in the front yard. The children were present during both incidents.
As previously noted, the trial court ordered that the children remain in the custody of the Mother.2 However, the order also gave DCF “or the temporary legal custodian the right to have temporary physical custody of the children” to provide for the needs of the children. This language giving DCF the right to have temporary physical custody of the children is erroneous, as the trial court granted the Mother legal custody of the children. We therefore reverse this portion of the order and direct the trial court to strike the language indicating that DCF has the *517right to have temporary physical custody of the children. See § 39.521(4), Fla. Stat. (2012) (“An agency granted legal custody shall have the right to determine where and with whom the child shall live, but an individual granted legal custody shall exercise all rights and duties personally unless otherwise ordered by the court.”).
Further, the dependency order also appears to contradict itself regarding the contact it allows between the children and the maternal grandparents.3 While it states that the Mother shall not allow the maternal grandparents to have unsupervised visits with the children without the approval of DCF, it also states that the grandparents may transport the children for visits with the father. This portion of the order is reversed and remanded for the trial court to clarify these two directives.
Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded with directions.
WALLACE and LaROSE, JJ„ Concur.