IN THE INTEREST OF H.T., A CHILD. K.B., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, APPELLEES
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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a permanent guardianship order and termination of protective supervision of a child, holding that the Department of Children and Families' failure to provide proper notice and the circuit court's failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing violated the parent's due process rights.
The court held that the Department's failure to provide notice and the circuit court's failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing violated K.B.'s due process rights. The court also held that the visitation order complied with section 39.6221(2)(c) because it specified a minimum frequency of visitation and did not leave all discretion to the guardian, distinguishing cases where complete discretion was impermissibly granted.
[1] A parent's due process rights are violated when the Department of Children and Families fails to notify the parent of its intent to seek permanent guardianship and the ci…
[2] A permanent guardianship order must specify the frequency and nature of visitation or contact between the child and parents, and cannot leave such matters to the complete…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“its failure to notify KB. of its intent to seek a permanent guardianship and the circuit court's failure to conduct an evidentiary-hearing on the Department's motion for such violated KB.'s due process rights”
Establishes the core constitutional violation requiring reversal
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceK.B.'s daughter, H.T., was placed in a permanent guardianship with protective supervision terminated. The Department of Children and Families sought p…
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 Protective Supervision cases and more on FLexlaw
We reverse the order placing KB.’s daughter, H.T., in a permanent guardianship and terminating protective supervision. As the Department of Children and Families properly concedes, its failure to notify KB. of its intent to seek a *121permanent guardianship and the circuit court’s failure to conduct an evidentiary-hearing on the Department’s motion for such violated KB.’s due process rights. J.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 130 So.3d 753, 756-57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); P.P. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 86 So.3d 556, 559-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); T.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 928 So.2d 1291, 1294 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).
For purposes of the proceedings on remand, we note that section 39.6221(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2015), requires the circuit court to “[slpecify the frequency and nature of visitation or contact between the child and his or her parents.” Here, the court’s order specifies that K.B. shall have a minimum of one hour per week supervised visitation, with additional visitation at the permanent guardian’s' discretion. The order also gives the guardian discretion to permit unsupervised visitation upon determining that KB. has achieved the sobriety and • stability necessary to keep the child safe. However, it does not leave the frequency and nature of visitation to the guardian’s complete discretion. Therefore, the order comports with section 39.6221(2)(c). Cf. S.W-R. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 64 So.3d 1283, 1284-85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), (holding the permanent guardianship order that provided for visitation biweekly for an hour to an hour and a half “or at the discretion of the caregiver” did not comply with section 39.6221(2)(c) because it placed complete discretion concerning the frequency and duration of visitation with the permanent guardian).
Reversed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't of Child. & Families v. L. (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)…r would be seeking to close the case through permanent guardianship. We have consistently held that the Department's failure to notify a parent of its intent to seek a permanent guardianship violates due process. K.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam., 204 So. 3d 120, 120–21 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); J.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 130 So. 3d 753, 756–57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); P.P. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 86 So. 3d 556, 559–60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); T.H. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 928 So. 2d 1291…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of K.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 86 So. 3d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- In the Interest of J.B. and J.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 130 So. 3d 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Davel M. Ross v. State, 64 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- In the Interest of K.H. and K.H. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 928 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- In the Interest of J.L.R., JR. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 64 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)