R.W., MOTHER OF H.W., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 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.
A mother of a dependent child appeals the trial court's decision to change her case plan goal from reunification to permanent placement with the non-offending father. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that while substantial compliance with a case plan is necessary for reunification, it does not mandate return of the child to the offending parent when a non-offending parent is available and placement with that parent serves the child's best interests.
Substantial compliance with a case plan is a prerequisite to reunification, but does not mandate reunification with the offending parent when a non-offending parent is available and willing to assume custody. When a non-offending parent is available, the court is required to place the child with that parent if conditions are met, and the court has discretion to order permanent custody to the non-offending parent, provided the court determines the change is in the child's best interest.
[1] A trial court is required to place a dependent child with a non-offending parent if one is available and certain statutory conditions are met.
[2] A trial court must determine that placing a child with a non-offending parent is in the child's best interest before ordering such a change in custody.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Clearly, substantial compliance with a case plan is a prerequisite to reuniting a parent and a dependent child [...] However, compliance by itself, does not mandate reunification with the offending parent under these circumstances.”
Establishes the key distinction that while substantial compliance is necessary, it is not sufficient to require reunification when a non-offending parent is available.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA child was adjudicated dependent. The mother was an offending parent, and the father was a non-offending parent. The trial court found that the mothe…
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 Permanent Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
HAWKES, J.
Appellant, the offending mother of a dependent child, appeals the trial court’s order changing her case plan goal from reunification, to placing the child in the permanent custody of his natural father, a non-offending parent. Appellant argues that, because the trial court found she substantially complied with her case plan and the case plan goal throughout the proceedings was reunification, section 39.701(9)(b), Florida Statutes (2004) mandates the court return the child to her. We affirm.
When a child is adjudicated dependent, the court is required to place the child with a non-offending parent if one is available and certain conditions are met. See § 39.521(3)(b), Fla. Stat.; see also L.P., father of J.Q. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 871 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Those conditions are met here. Under these circumstances, the court may order the non-offending parent to assume sole custodial responsibility. See § 39.521(3)(b)l., Fla. Stat. (2004). However, prior to making the change in custody, the court must determine the change is in the best interest of the child. See § 39.521(3)(b)2„ Fla. Stat. (2004). No argument is made that, prior to placing the child with the father, the court failed to consider the best interest of the child.
Clearly, substantial compliance with a case plan is a prerequisite to reuniting a parent and a dependent child. See § 39.522(2) and § 39.701(9)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004). However, compliance by itself, does not mandate reunification with the offending parent under these circumstances. Here, the father was a non-offending parent, the court was required to place the child with his father, and it was within the court’s discretion to give permanent custody to the father. Since the court may place permanent custody with the non-offending father, it cannot be required to return custody to Appellant, simply because she substantially complied with, or completed her case plan.
The trial court did not err by placing permanent custody of the child with his father. The trial court’s order is
AFFIRMED.
ALLEN, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.