IN THE INTEREST OF S.M. AND G.M., CHILDREN. J.M. AND D.B., PETITIONERS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, RESPONDENTS
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.
Florida appellate court granted a writ of certiorari in part, quashing the requirement for substance abuse evaluations in a dependency case plan where the record contained no evidence that such evaluations were relevant to the children's removal.
A trial court departs from the essential requirements of law by requiring substance abuse evaluations in a dependency case plan when nothing in the record indicates such evaluations are relevant to the dependency or would meaningfully address the facts and circumstances resulting in the children's removal.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by requiring substance abuse evaluations in a dependency case plan absent evidence in the record that such evaluations are relevant to…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.M. (Father) and D.B. (Mother) challenged a disposition order in a dependency case that required them to submit to psychiatric and substance abuse ev…
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 Case Plan Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
J.M., the Father, and D.B., the Mother, petitioned this court for a writ of certiorari to quash the disposition order that accepted the case plan requiring each to submit to a psychiatric evaluation1 and a substance abuse evaluation. The trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law because nothing in the record indicates that a substance abuse evaluation is relevant to the dependency or that it would meaningfully address the facts and circumstances which resulted in the children’s removal from the home. See, e.g., §§ 39.6011(2)(a), .6012(l)(a), .603(l)(f), Fla. Stat. (2013); C.T. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 84 So.3d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). As such, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari in part, quashing the disposition order to the extent that it requires the Father and the Mother to submit to substance abuse evaluations as part of the case plan. We note that the case plan may of course be amended pursuant to section 39.6013 and Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.420 should the need arise.
Petition granted in part; order quashed in part.
DAVIS, C.J., and CRENSHAW, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.P. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 159 So. 3d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…o strike the task of random drug testing from the father’s case plan. We emphasize, however, that upon a showing of good cause, the case plan may be amended to require a substance abuse evaluation of the father should the need arise. See In re S.M., 136 So. 3d 1271, 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (“[W]e grant the petition for writ of certiorari in part, quashing the disposition order to the extent that it requires the Father and the Mother to submit to substance abuse evaluations as part of the case plan. We note tha…1 / 2
-
E.G. v. The Dep't OF Child., 193 So. 3d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…e reject DCF’s argument. The trial court also lacked the authority to impose the requirements in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order. Appellate courts have granted certiorari relief where a trial court has ordered improper drug testing. See In re S.M., 136 So. 3d 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Although Chapter 397 includes various sections, such as section 397.6811, whereby a court could ostensibly order an assessment, there is no statutory authorization for indefinitely recurring drug testing of dependent children. Be…
-
In the Interest of M.W. v. Dep't of Child. & Families & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 163 So. 3d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…plan tasks beyond the parenting class. See §§ 39.407(15), .407(16), .6011(2)(a), .6012(1)(a), ,603(1)(f), Fla. Stat. (2014); C.T. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 84 So. 3d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); cf. J.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 136 So. 3d 1271, 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (granting the petition for writ of certiorari in part where the trial court sua sponte amended the case plan absent the requisite evidentiary showing pursuant to section 39.6013, Florida Statutes). As such, we affirm the adj…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In the Interest of G.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 84 So. 3d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)