T.A.S., R.A.S.
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
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.
When a parent whose parental rights have not been terminated seeks reunification or increased contact with a child in permanent placement, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the dependency case should be reopened and whether modification of the order is appropriate.
[1] A trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing when a parent whose parental rights have not been terminated moves for reunification or increased contact with a child in p…
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 intelligence“When a child is in a permanent placement and '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.'”
The court cited the statutory requirement mandating an evidentiary hearing in this circumstance.
T.A.S. was the father of R.A.S., who was placed in permanent guardianship in 2020 at the conclusion of a dependency case. T.A.S. was ordered to have n…
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 No-Contact Order cases and more on FLexlaw
February 21, 2024 PER CURIAM.
T.A.S. is the father of R.A.S. In 2020, R.A.S. was placed in a permanent guardianship at the conclusion of a dependency case. See § 39.6221, Fla. Stat. (2020). T.A.S. was ordered to have no contact with R.A.S, but his parental rights were not terminated. See § 39.6221(6), Fla. Stat.
Thereafter, T.A.S. sought to vacate the no-contact order. Here, T.A.S. appeals a final order which denied his motion and amended motion to vacate the no-contact order. The record on appeal is limited as to the procedural history of the involvement of the Department of Children and Families with T.A.S. and R.A.S.
However, the parties acknowledge in their filings in this court that at the time of the motions to vacate, the child was in permanent placement. See § 39.621(7), Fla. Stat. (listing permanent guardianship as a permanent placement).
Because the motions to vacate were denied without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing, the trial court erred. See § 39.621(10)(a), Fla. Stat. (2022). When a child is in a permanent placement and “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.” Id. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the motions to vacate, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
LEWIS, BILBREY, and LONG, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.